Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 10 May 2022 17:53:32 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Karel Zak <kzak@redhat.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        LSM <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] getting misc stats/attributes via xattr API
Message-ID: <20220510155332.3zm5nycl7nmuxgdx@wittgenstein>
References: <YnEeuw6fd1A8usjj@miu.piliscsaba.redhat.com>
 <20220509124815.vb7d2xj5idhb2wq6@wittgenstein>
 <CAJfpegveWaS5pR3O1c_7qLnaEDWwa8oi26x2v_CwDXB_sir1tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220510115316.acr6gl5ayqszada6@wittgenstein>
 <CAJfpegtVgyumJiFM_ujjuRTjg07vwOd4h9AT+mbh+n1Qn-LqqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220510141932.lth3bryefbl6ykny@wittgenstein>
 <CAJfpegt94fP-_eDAk=_C=24ahCtjQ4vhh8Xg+SrZbwPHs1waLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220510153050.cgbt3wezbvf2jfnb@wittgenstein>
 <CAJfpegu8d2VQ+WjfmUJ6g7YBPJsYUABt0jG5ByVh-dMt_waV8A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegu8d2VQ+WjfmUJ6g7YBPJsYUABt0jG5ByVh-dMt_waV8A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 05:47:13PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 at 17:30, Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > But now we're in the process of extending the *xattr() calls to operate
> > on mounts and filesystems so an additional getfsattr() (or another name)
> > is not fragmentation imho. And I definitely don't think this would
> > qualify as "crazy".
> 
> In that spirit st_dev does not belong in struct stat, because that is
> the property of the block device, not the inode.
> 
> But I feel we are going round in circles, lets please not get hung up
> on this issue.  Linus will have the final word on which variant (if
> either) is going to go in.

Well yes, I'm obviously not going to be d*ck about it and go around
NAKing it just because I didn't get my favorite name but I at least
want to register my strong opposition to the current "unification"
approach loud and clear. :)