On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 10:42:27AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 10:28 AM Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 11:37:50AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 03:43:28PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > <shrug> XFS has a long history with 'struct fsxattr' (the structure you > > > passed to XFS_IOC_FSGETXATTR) but the rest of the kernel needn't be so > > > fixated upon the historical name. ext4/f2fs/overlay afaict are just > > > going along for the ride. > > > > > > IOWs I like brauner's struct file_attr and struct file_kattr > > > suggestions. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > But yeah, that ought to be a treewide change done at the same time. > > > > Why do you all hate me? ;) > > See the appended patch. > > This looks obviously fine, but I wonder how much conflicts that would > cause in linux-next? > It may just be small enough to get by. With such changes that's always a possibility but really I'll just provide a branch with the resolutions for Linus to pull.
