On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 09:27:39AM -0700, Allison Collins wrote: > I was thinking of adapting this patch to be part of a 3 patch series > including one of Chistophs. Something like this: > > [PATCH v6 11/16] xfs: Check for -ENOATTR or -EEXIST > [PATCH v6 03/16] xfs: Add xfs_has_attr and subroutines > [PATCH 02/29] xfs: merge xfs_attr_remove into xfs_attr_set > > What would people think of that? I figured this would be better than the > two of us bombarding the mailing list with giant conflicting sets? Also, was > I able to answer everyones questions on this patch? I'm still not sold at all on this series. It adds a lot of code and makes it much harder to understand. So I'd much rather go back and figuring out how we can do delayed attrs in a more streamlined way. The has_attr and co changes are some of exactly that kind of logic that is just making things worse in the standalone patch set, so even if we must end up with it they absolutely belong into a series actually adding functionality, as they have no use on their own. Independent of that we'll need to clean up the flags mess, so I'd rather just go ahead with that for now.
