From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:60561 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753104AbeEKOoZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 May 2018 10:44:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 16:41:45 +0200 From: David Sterba To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Chris Mason , David Sterba , Al Viro , Eric Sandeen , fsdevel , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Linux API Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 V2] hoist BTRFS_IOC_[SG]ET_FSLABEL to vfs Message-ID: <20180511144145.GA6649@twin.jikos.cz> Reply-To: dsterba@suse.cz References: <4a4f33c3-2173-9795-f4e4-1e9d338fd9a7@sandeen.net> <20180510191608.GR30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20180511141017.GZ6649@twin.jikos.cz> <9F0DCA90-AD82-4179-B50A-F112CF966CCB@fb.com> <94b5a947-d7f5-19e7-fb2b-161a5c20e85e@sandeen.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <94b5a947-d7f5-19e7-fb2b-161a5c20e85e@sandeen.net> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 09:36:09AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/11/18 9:32 AM, Chris Mason wrote: > > On 11 May 2018, at 10:10, David Sterba wrote: > > > >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 08:16:09PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > >>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 01:13:57PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>>> Move the btrfs label ioctls up to the vfs for general use. > >>>> > >>>> This retains 256 chars as the maximum size through the interface, which > >>>> is the btrfs limit and AFAIK exceeds any other filesystem's maximum > >>>> label size. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen > >>>> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger > >>>> Reviewed-by: David Sterba > >>> > >>> No objections (and it obviously ought to go through btrfs tree). > >> > >> I can take it through my tree, but Eric mentioned that there's a patch > >> for xfs that depends on it. In this case it would make sense to take > >> both patches at once via the xfs tree. There are no pending conflicting > >> changes in btrfs. > > > > Probably easiest to just have a separate pull dedicated just for this series.� That way it doesn't really matter which tree it goes through. > > Actually, I just realized that the changes to include/uapi/linux/fs.h are completely > independent of any btrfs changes, right - there's nothing wrong w/ redefining > the common ioctl under a different name in btrfs. So the fs.h patch could go first, > through the xfs tree since it'll be using it. > > Once the common ioctl definition goes in, then btrfs can change to define its ioctls to > the common ioctls, or act on them directly as my patch did, etc. Would that be > a better plan? IOWs there's no urgent need to coordinate a btrfs change. Agreed, I like that plan.