Re: [PATCH 00/25] move handling of setuid/gid bits from VFS intoindividual setattr functions (RESEND)

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:45:34 -0400
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > - rename something so that unconverted filesystems will reliably fail to
> >   compile?
> > 
> > - leave existing filesystems alone, but add a new
> >   inode_operations.setattr_jeff, which the networked filesytems can
> >   implement, and teach core vfs to call setattr_jeff in preference to
> >   setattr?
> 
> If you really need to know that the filesystem is handling the flags,
> then how about instead having ->setattr() return something which
> indicates which flags it actually handled? That is likely to be a far
> more intrusive change, but it is one which is future-proof.

If we change ->setattr so that it will return a positive, non-zero value
which the caller can then check and reliably do printk("that filesystem
needs updating") then that addresses my concern, sure.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/