Hi Ryusuke, On Mon, 2014-04-21 at 01:18 +0900, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
[snip] > > Thank you for posting this series. > > I am thinking of sending this series to upstream. > > For that end, please clarify the motivation, the background, or the > issue what this series tries to solve within the cover letter ([PATCH > 0/n]). I will refer to it when I will send the series to upstream. > OK. I'll do it. > Also, it's preferable to include a brief overview of this sysfs > interface in a Documentation file. > > Some filesystems describe their sysfs interface in > Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-xxx. Even though this sysfs > interface has description of ABI in README files, I think > documentation should be added in a similar manner to other > filesystems. > Yes, I agree. It makes sense. I'll add the description. > You chose "nilfs" instead of "nilfs2" as the filesystem name. This > may lead to discussion, but I also prefer "nilfs" because we > intentionally use the name "nilfs" in userland as the name separated > from implementation and this is the name of interface for users and > userland tools. > > One my question is about the "device" name. Is it guaranteed that > every device has canonical single node name? What will happen for > devices such as /dev/mapper/xxx? > I need to check it. I am not ready to answer right now. Thanks, Vyacheslav Dubeyko. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
