On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 10:57:11AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> STATX_ATTR_MOUNT_ROOT and STATX_ATTR_DAX got merged with the same value,
> so one of them needs fixing. Move STATX_ATTR_DAX.
>
> While we're in here, clarify the value-matching scheme for some of the
> attributes, and explain why the value for DAX does not match.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
> ---
> include/uapi/linux/stat.h | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/stat.h b/include/uapi/linux/stat.h
> index 82cc58fe9368..9ad19eb9bbbf 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/stat.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/stat.h
> @@ -171,9 +171,10 @@ struct statx {
> * be of use to ordinary userspace programs such as GUIs or ls rather than
> * specialised tools.
> *
> - * Note that the flags marked [I] correspond to generic FS_IOC_FLAGS
> + * Note that the flags marked [I] correspond to the FS_IOC_SETFLAGS flags
> * semantically. Where possible, the numerical value is picked to correspond
> - * also.
> + * also. Note that the DAX attribute indicates that the inode is currently
> + * DAX-enabled, not simply that the per-inode flag has been set.
> */
> #define STATX_ATTR_COMPRESSED 0x00000004 /* [I] File is compressed by the fs */
> #define STATX_ATTR_IMMUTABLE 0x00000010 /* [I] File is marked immutable */
> @@ -183,7 +184,7 @@ struct statx {
> #define STATX_ATTR_AUTOMOUNT 0x00001000 /* Dir: Automount trigger */
> #define STATX_ATTR_MOUNT_ROOT 0x00002000 /* Root of a mount */
> #define STATX_ATTR_VERITY 0x00100000 /* [I] Verity protected file */
> -#define STATX_ATTR_DAX 0x00002000 /* [I] File is DAX */
> +#define STATX_ATTR_DAX 0x00400000 /* File is currently DAX-enabled */
This will force a change to xfstests at a minimum. And I do know of users who
have been using this value. But I have gotten inquires about using the feature
so there are users out there.
Darrick, do we have someone doing the patches for xfstest?
Ira
>
>
> #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_STAT_H */
> --
> 2.17.0
>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 6:16 PM Ira Weiny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This will force a change to xfstests at a minimum. And I do know of users who
> have been using this value. But I have gotten inquires about using the feature
> so there are users out there.
If it's only a few tests that fail, I wouldn't worry about it, and the
tests should just be updated.
But if there are real user concerns, we may need to have some kind of
compat code. Because of the whole "no regressions" thing.
What would the typical failure cases be in practice?
Linus