Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 14:22:52 -0400
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
        djwong@kernel.org, david@fromorbit.com, trondmy@hammerspace.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, zohar@linux.ibm.com, xiubli@redhat.com,
        chuck.lever@oracle.com, lczerner@redhat.com, brauner@kernel.org,
        fweimer@redhat.com, linux-man@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new
 STATX_INO_VERSION field
Message-ID: <20220908182252.GA18939@fieldses.org>
References: <79aaf122743a295ddab9525d9847ac767a3942aa.camel@kernel.org>
 <20220907125211.GB17729@fieldses.org>
 <771650a814ab1ff4dc5473d679936b747d9b6cf5.camel@kernel.org>
 <20220907135153.qvgibskeuz427abw@quack3>
 <166259786233.30452.5417306132987966849@noble.neil.brown.name>
 <20220908083326.3xsanzk7hy3ff4qs@quack3>
 <YxoIjV50xXKiLdL9@mit.edu>
 <02928a8c5718590bea5739b13d6b6ebe66cac577.camel@kernel.org>
 <20220908155605.GD8951@fieldses.org>
 <9e06c506fd6b3e3118da0ec24276e85ea3ee45a1.camel@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9e06c506fd6b3e3118da0ec24276e85ea3ee45a1.camel@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
From:   bfields@fieldses.org (J. Bruce Fields)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 01:40:11PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> Yeah, ok. That does make some sense. So we would mix this into the
> i_version instead of the ctime when it was available. Preferably, we'd
> mix that in when we store the i_version rather than adding it afterward.
> 
> Ted, how would we access this? Maybe we could just add a new (generic)
> super_block field for this that ext4 (and other filesystems) could
> populate at mount time?

Couldn't the filesystem just return an ino_version that already includes
it?

--b.