On Tue, Sep 04, 2019 at 08:36:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 01:48:49PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 03:53:47PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 01:31:48PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > + uint64_t ag_reserved[12]; > > > > > > Where's the flags field for feature versioning? Please don't tell me > > > we merged an ioctl structure without a flags or version field in > > > it... > > > > Yes, we did, though the "reserved fields are always zeroed" enables us > > to retroactively define this to v0 of the structure. > > OK, but this is an input/output structure, not an output-only > structure, so the flags field needs to cover what features the > caller might be expecting the kernel to return, too.,, What do you think of the v2 "xfs: define a flags field for the AG geometry ioctl structure" patch, then? --D > > > > +}; > > > > +.fi > > > > +.in > > > > +.TP > > > > +.I ag_number > > > > +The number of allocation group that the caller wishes to learn about. > > > > > > "the index of".... > > > > > > "The number of" is easily confused with a quantity.... > > > > > > Is this an input or an output? > > > > Purely an input. > > > > "The caller must set this field to the index of the allocation group > > that the caller wishes to learn about." ? > > *nod*. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
