On 2026-05-21 11:57 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2026 at 01:51:08AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > You haven't sent a proposal. This is a reply to a reply to a reply of a > > > patch. There's no justification for why f2fs is so special that it > > > needs this. What the hell is going on? You know this is not the way to > > > get code merged into Linux. > > > > None of this got properly answers, and this broken interface now landed > > in linux-next. IT is offloading a user.* xattr which is free-form > > user data with semantics that are weird to say it very nicely. > > > > All this was done against the advice in the mailing list discussion. > > So let me get this straight. This is a magic xattr interface which is > not even persisted in the file system, but instead sets a 32-bit > bitmask in the struct inode which disappears once the inode gets > flushed from the inode stack. And it uses a generic xattr name, > "user.fadvise". > > There's no way in *hell* any other file system is likely to adopt such > a broken interface, so why didn't you just use an ioctl to set this > magic f2fs-specific flag? > > > I think at some point we just need to stop taking f2fs updates likes > > this. > > Well, that's ultiamtely up to Linus. I'll say that if I were Linus > (and I'm glad I'm not :-), and I saw this in a pull request, I'd > reject it out of hand. But whether it's worth making a huge fuss and > asking escalating this mess to Linus, we probably should get a bit > more community consensus before taking such a drastic step. > > Christian, since you're one of the VFS maintaienrs, what's your > opinion about escalating this to Linus?
I think we don't need to involve Linus. The interface as is is broken. Using xattrs for this makes no sense whatsoever. _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
