Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1408071538-14354-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
 <20140815092950.GZ18016@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <c3b0feac-327c-15db-02c1-4a25639540e4@suse.com>
 <CAB=NE6X2-mbZwVFnKUwjRmTGp3auZFHQXJ1h_YTJ2driUeoR+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <e7e867b8-b57a-7eb2-2432-1627bd3a88fb@toxicpanda.com> <20210415182909.GK4332@42.do-not-panic.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210415182909.GK4332@42.do-not-panic.com>
From:   Neal Gompa <ngompa13@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:20:40 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEg-Je8UCV6kFdXJoyH3B78sraYCXscTmQQiPHjkPvzt5g1Wpw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/2] vfs / btrfs: add support for ustat()
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
Cc:     Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:29 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:17:58PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > There's a lot of larger things that need to
> > be addressed in general to support the volume approach inside file syst=
ems
> > that is going to require a lot of work inside of VFS.  If you feel like
> > tackling that work and then wiring up btrfs by all means have at it, bu=
t I'm
> > not seeing a urgent need to address this.  Thanks,
>
> That's precisely what I what I want to hear me about. Things like this.
> Would btrfs be the ony user of volumes inside filesystem? Jeff had
> mentioned before this could also allow namespaces per volumes, and this
> might be a desirable feature.
>
> What else?

Wouldn't this be useful for union filesystems like OverlayFS? Or other
filesystems that support nested filesystems like bcachefs?


--=20
=E7=9C=9F=E5=AE=9F=E3=81=AF=E3=81=84=E3=81=A4=E3=82=82=E4=B8=80=E3=81=A4=EF=
=BC=81/ Always, there's only one truth!