Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42515 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752165AbbKZPff (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:35:35 -0500 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20151124195256.GB3482@thunk.org> References: <20151124195256.GB3482@thunk.org> <20151120145422.18930.72662.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20151120145447.18930.5308.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: "Theodore Ts'o" Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, arnd@arndb.de, linux-afs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] statx: Provide IOC flags for Windows fs attributes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:35:29 +0000 Message-ID: <7976.1448552129@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Theodore Ts'o wrote: > As a result, I would suggest that we not try to use the > FS_IOC_[GS]ETFLAGS number scheme for any new interface, so we're at > least not making a bad situation worse. > > The only reason why some other file systems have chosen to use > FS_IOC_[GS]ETFLAGS, instead of defining their own ioctl, is so they > can use lsattr/chattr from e2fsprogs instead of creating their own > utility. But for statx, there isn't a good reason use the same flags > number space. At the very least, can we use a new flags field for the > Windows file attributes? It's not like lsattr/chattr has the ability > to set those flags today anyway. So we might as well use a new flags > field and a new flags numberspace for them. Hmmm... I was trying to make it so that these bits would be saved to disk as part of the IOC flags so that Samba could make use of them. I guess they'll have to be stored in an xattr instead. David