On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 01:55:38PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 23-06-25 11:01:28, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > Introduce new pidfs file handle values.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/exportfs.h | 11 +++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/exportfs.h b/include/linux/exportfs.h
> > index 25c4a5afbd44..45b38a29643f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/exportfs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/exportfs.h
> > @@ -99,6 +99,11 @@ enum fid_type {
> > */
> > FILEID_FAT_WITH_PARENT = 0x72,
> >
> > + /*
> > + * 64 bit inode number.
> > + */
> > + FILEID_INO64 = 0x80,
> > +
> > /*
> > * 64 bit inode number, 32 bit generation number.
> > */
> > @@ -131,6 +136,12 @@ enum fid_type {
> > * Filesystems must not use 0xff file ID.
> > */
> > FILEID_INVALID = 0xff,
> > +
> > + /* Internal kernel fid types */
> > +
> > + /* pidfs fid types */
> > + FILEID_PIDFS_FSTYPE = 0x100,
> > + FILEID_PIDFS = FILEID_PIDFS_FSTYPE | FILEID_INO64,
>
> What is the point behind having FILEID_INO64 and FILEID_PIDFS separately?
> Why not just allocate one value for FILEID_PIDFS and be done with it? Do
> you expect some future extensions for pidfs?
I wouldn't rule it out, yes. This was also one of Amir's suggestions.
