Re: [PATCH 00/25] move handling of setuid/gid bits from VFS into individual setattr functions (RESEND)
Andrew Morton <[email protected]> Tue, 7 Aug 2007 17:54:02 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.cluster.redhat.cluster.devel,gmane.comp.file-systems.coda.general,gmane.comp.file-systems.reiserfs.general,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.comp.file-systems.fuse.devel,gmane.linux.file-systems.jffs,gmane.linux.uml.user,gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4,gmane.linux.file-systems.cifs,gmane.comp.file-systems.ocfs2.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:45:34 -0400 Trond Myklebust <[email protected]> wrote: > > - rename something so that unconverted filesystems will reliably fail to > > compile? > > > > - leave existing filesystems alone, but add a new > > inode_operations.setattr_jeff, which the networked filesytems can > > implement, and teach core vfs to call setattr_jeff in preference to > > setattr? > > If you really need to know that the filesystem is handling the flags, > then how about instead having ->setattr() return something which > indicates which flags it actually handled? That is likely to be a far > more intrusive change, but it is one which is future-proof. If we change ->setattr so that it will return a positive, non-zero value which the caller can then check and reliably do printk("that filesystem needs updating") then that addresses my concern, sure.