From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f53.google.com ([209.85.221.53]:37002 "EHLO mail-wr1-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725966AbeLGJed (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Dec 2018 04:34:33 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f53.google.com with SMTP id j10so3145867wru.4 for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2018 01:34:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 10:34:29 +0100 From: Carlos Maiolino To: Andreas =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbacher?= Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Linux FS-devel Mailing List , Andreas Dilger , sandeen@redhat.com, Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10 V2] New ->fiemap infrastructure and ->bmap removal Message-ID: <20181207093429.t3zzkxmfc4wlt5ny@hades.usersys.redhat.com> References: <20181205091728.29903-1-cmaiolino@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 07:56:02PM +0100, Andreas Gr�nbacher wrote: > Hi, > > Am Mi., 5. Dez. 2018 um 10:18 Uhr schrieb Carlos Maiolino > : > > This is the second version of the complete series with the goal to remove ->bmap > > interface completely, in lieu of FIEMAP. > > I'm not thrilled by this approach. How about exposing the iomap > operations at the vfs layer (for example, in the super block) and > implementing bmap on top of that instead? > Well, the idea is exactly to get rid of bmap, not reimplement it. We can use the same operation for both cases (fiemap+fibmap), so I honestly don't see which advantages would be by reimplementing it. > (I realize that xfs has separate iomap operations for xattrs, but that > is only used in its fiemap implementation.) > > Thanks, > Andreas -- Carlos