On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:38:28AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:03:26AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 01:11:00PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote: > > > Hi Darrick, > > > > > > It is reasonable for your concern to add a check in VFS, but checking all > > > defined xflags is too rough in VFS if one filesystem only supports few > > > xflags. :-) > > > > I was advocating for two levels of flags checks: one in the VFS for > > undefined flags, and a second check in each filesystem for whichever > > flag it wants to recognize. I was not implying that the VFS checks > > would be sufficient on their own. > > > > I've not really followed this thread completely but wouldn't this proposed > check in the VFS layer be redundant because the set of flags the filesystem > accepts should always be a strict subset of the VFS flags? Yes. It's 100% CYA. I wouldn't be that bent out of shape if the vfs part never happens, but as we already have a vfs argument checker function in addition to the per-fs validation I don't see why we would leave a gap... ;) --D > Ira
