> Hm, I wonder whether we should just make all of this an extension of the > new file_getattr() system call we're about to add instead of adding a > separate ioctl for this. Hi Christian, Thanks for the suggestion to explore file_getattr() for exposing PI capabilities. I spent some time evaluating this path. Block devices don’t implement inode_operations, including fileattr_get, so invoking file_getattr() on something like /dev/nvme0n1 currently returns -EOPNOTSUPP. Supporting this would require introducing inode_operations, and then wiring up fileattr_get in the block layer. Given that, I think sticking with an ioctl may be the cleaner approach. Do you see this differently? Thanks, Anuj
