On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> Are you okay with JFS using a few ioctl's in the utilities and
> continuing the discussion of whether more general-purpose metadata
> access should occur in procfs or under your proposal?
OK, one immediate problem with ioctls on directories: unions.
Think what happens when you union-mount JFS somewhere. And
mountpoint also is on JFS. Where should ioctl() go?
Other that that (and general ugliness of ioctls) - no problems. I
really think that trick I've described would be cleaner, but that's
a separate story. It's not like we had a moratorium on new ioctls,
after all and JFS wouldn't be the first fs to do something like that.
I don't think that it's a good idea, but the worst thing that can
happen is inconvenience for union-mount setups. When union-mount
gets to testable stage, that is - it's not like it was going into the
tree before 2.5, anyway.
procfs use for per-filesystem stuff is a different issue - that is just
asking for bad breakage.
Cheers,
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
