On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 2:40 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Er... "fsx_fileattr" is the struct that the system call uses? > > > > That's a little confusing considering that xfs already has a > > xfs_fill_fsxattr function that actually fills a struct fileattr. > > That could be renamed xfs_fill_fileattr. > > > > I dunno. There's a part of me that would really rather that the > > file_getattr and file_setattr syscalls operate on a struct file_attr. > > Agreed, I'm pretty sure I suggested this during an earlier review. Fits > in line with struct mount_attr and others. Fwiw, struct fileattr (the > kernel internal thing) should've really been struct file_kattr or struct > kernel_file_attr. This is a common pattern now: > > struct mount_attr vs struct mount_kattr > > struct clone_args vs struct kernel_clone_kargs > > etc. >file_attr I can see the allure, but we have a long history here with fsxattr, so I think it serves the users better to reference this history with fsxattr64. That, and also, avoid the churn of s/fileattr/file_kattr/ If you want to do this renaming, please do it in the same PR because I don't like the idea of having both file_attr and fileattr in the tree for an unknown period. Thanks, Amir.
