From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8234FC433E2 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D87B2083B for ; Wed, 2 Sep 2020 17:38:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726937AbgIBRia (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:38:30 -0400 Received: from mga17.intel.com ([192.55.52.151]:25581 "EHLO mga17.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726800AbgIBRia (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Sep 2020 13:38:30 -0400 IronPort-SDR: uzfQy2WVDhXYGeK/GHw+H70g5gIgtBS6ql7BEYhPy83B1R6OdiSfDq4k3JlOZ39jmZTvLHoVp6 pDmvDZWPKqbg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9732"; a="137495742" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,383,1592895600"; d="scan'208";a="137495742" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Sep 2020 10:38:29 -0700 IronPort-SDR: mN86lgl0yN1Br5AOAvCvXtJiqzUdPbBjcrPmnemB+BO1pecJnaXonduwFe1UP/nAR89fWgSgFE rR8+OmXeLudg== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,383,1592895600"; d="scan'208";a="446602144" Received: from iweiny-desk2.sc.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.3.52.147]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Sep 2020 10:38:29 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 10:38:28 -0700 From: Ira Weiny To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Xiao Yang , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Add check for unsupported xflags Message-ID: <20200902173828.GR878166@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> References: <20200831133745.33276-1-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200831172250.GT6107@magnolia> <5F4DE4C1.6010403@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200901163551.GW6107@magnolia> <5F4F0647.5060305@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200902030946.GL6096@magnolia> <5F4F12E2.3080200@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200902041039.GM6096@magnolia> <5F4F2964.8050809@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200902170326.GP6096@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200902170326.GP6096@magnolia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01) Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 10:03:26AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 01:11:00PM +0800, Xiao Yang wrote: > > Hi Darrick, > > > > It is reasonable for your concern to add a check in VFS, but checking all > > defined xflags is too rough in VFS if one filesystem only supports few > > xflags. :-) > > I was advocating for two levels of flags checks: one in the VFS for > undefined flags, and a second check in each filesystem for whichever > flag it wants to recognize. I was not implying that the VFS checks > would be sufficient on their own. > I've not really followed this thread completely but wouldn't this proposed check in the VFS layer be redundant because the set of flags the filesystem accepts should always be a strict subset of the VFS flags? Ira