From: "Takashi Sato" Subject: Re: [RFC] ext3 freeze feature Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:42:30 +0900 Message-ID: <001c01c85f4f$bfd128f0$41a8400a@bsd.tnes.nec.co.jp> References: <20080125195938t-sato@mail.jp.nec.com> <84144f020801250317pbdafc4fnd47cc8a297194e86@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="ISO-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , , "Christoph Hellwig" To: "Pekka Enberg" Return-path: Received: from TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.206]:49997 "EHLO tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755140AbYAYMoe (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:44:34 -0500 Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, > I am also wondering whether we should have system call(s) for these: > > On Jan 25, 2008 12:59 PM, Takashi Sato wrote: >> + case EXT3_IOC_FREEZE: { > >> + case EXT3_IOC_THAW: { > > And just convert XFS to use them too? I think it is reasonable to implement it as the generic system call, as you said. Does XFS folks think so? Cheers, Takashi