Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752142AbcKEDGG (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:06:06 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]:33548 "EHLO mail-oi0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751147AbcKEDGD (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:06:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161104093050.GB1839@veci.piliscsaba.szeredi.hu> References: <20161104093050.GB1839@veci.piliscsaba.szeredi.hu> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:06:02 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WZI0akgOzLfUsipiqtvJonKbhXw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] overlayfs fixes for 4.9-rc3 To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 752 Lines: 18 On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Also introduce the concept of feature flags to allow backward incompatible > changes to the overlay format. This should have been there from day one; the > best we can do now is backport to stable kernels. Add the check for features > without adding any actual features yet. No. I pulled the three other commits, but not that last one. That feature just seems to actively *encourage* backwards incompatible features. It's a bad idea. Don't do it. If we've been able to do without it so far, then why should we suddenly start doing things like this? So I don't agree that it should have been there since day one, it just shouldn't exist at all. Linus