From: Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC V3] ext3: add ioctl to force 32-bit hashes from indexed dirs Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:49:00 -0500 Message-ID: <5159E4AC.7050307@redhat.com> References: <51546EED.8030507@redhat.com> <5154AAB4.2000701@redhat.com> <5159A8D5.1000204@redhat.com> <20130401181718.GB22443@thunk.org> <5159D03F.5000606@redhat.com> <20130401190804.GD22443@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ext4 development , Anand Avati , Jan Kara To: "Theodore Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52461 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759465Ab3DATtq (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:49:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130401190804.GD22443@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 4/1/13 2:08 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 01:21:51PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> This would allow a bit more flexibility than just requiring that the >>> ioctl be issued just after the opendir(), and allow it just after a >>> call to rewinddir(). >> >> I guess I do wonder what real-world use that might have, though. > > To be honest, I can't think of one. And if the presumption is this is > just going to be a special case hack, maybe we shouldn't worry about > the general-use case. > > Thinking about this some more, keeping this simple might be better way > to go. It's not like we really want to be encouraging people to use > this interface.... > > What do you think? Urgh, I guess if we are adding an interface which will live "forever," we may as well make it full featured & flexible, as long as the complexity isn't out of hand, and I don't think it will be in this case. So I'm at least half inclined to go ahead & allow toggling it on and off under the right circumstances, even though it goes against what I think is my better judgement. ;) -Eric > - Ted >