On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:20:50 +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote: >> The features directory of sysfs interface should have global features >> which are independent to nilfs instance or version (e.g. nilfs3, etc) >> since you chose "nilfs" for the fs directory name. The revision file >> is self-contradictory in that sense. I think it should be placed in >> each device directory. Otherwise, we should use "nilfs2" as for the >> fs directory name. >> > > In current implementation: > (1) fs/nilfs/features/revision - show current supported revision by file > system driver. > (2) fs/nilfs/<device>/revision - show file system revision that it saved > in superblock of the volume. As a result, it shows the revision of file > system is created on a volume. > > I suppose that we have identical understanding. And current > implementation provides information about revision in the proper way. If > I misunderstand something, please, correct me. If we implement nilfs3 filesystem as a different instance like ext2/3/4 series, the namespace of nilfs/features/revision will conflict between nilfs2 and nilfs3. In reality of course, creating nilfs3 is unlikely at present, but logically the above namespace design looks incoherent. I now feel the namespace should be fs/nilfs2/xxxx In this case, it doesn't cause the confliction regardless whether we add nilfs3 or not. Thanks, Ryusuke Konishi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
