From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] vfs: vfs-level fiemap interface Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 09:48:59 -0400 Message-ID: <20080914134859.GB21746@infradead.org> References: <1221331767-16870-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <2EC8176B-0AFA-4B36-A2F5-E51753A576A5@cam.ac.uk> <20080913212903.GF26128@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Anton Altaparmakov , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linuxfoundation.org, Mark Fasheh To: Theodore Tso Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080913212903.GF26128@mit.edu> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 05:29:03PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > Part of the problem/frustration as we go around and round fs-devel is > that some people would request new features to support new > filesystems, and other people have been rejecting new features because > it makes the interface more complicated. > > In fact, the previous version of the patch had a flag for compression, > but Cristoph Hellwig objected because he claimed there were no users > for it. Let's make it clear, I've said to not add it unless we have users. And What Anton brought up is exactly the reason for that - to support encrypted extents we actually need more information in the structure. That's why we need to have this broad and sometimes a little slow discussion on fsdevel instead of just rushing in some flag for future use that won't make any sense in the end. (and btw, it's Christoph)