On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:09:51AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 07:47:17AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > I'm all for it in the main fiemap call, it makes much more sense for the > > users I think. > > How so? Current fiemap is a per-inode information, Daves new call is > per-fs. Making one a flag of another is a gross user interface. In > addition we're bound to get issue where filesystems fail to wire up > fiemap to the tons of different iops just for this operation, or > accidentally wire up "real" fiemap to things like special files or > pipes. > > Btw, I'd like t orestate that I really love to see this functionality in > the VFS, just not multiplexed over FIEMAP. That's fine. I just wanted to clarify what you were asking. FIEMAPFS it is, then... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
