On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 12:02:06PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > I'm not sure a XFLAG is all that useful. It's not really a per-file > > persistent thing. It's more of a mount option, or better persistent > > mount-option attr like we did for autofsck. > > If we were to make this a mount option it would be really really ugly. > Either it is a filesystem specific mount option and then we have the > problem that we're ending up with different mount option names > per-filesystem. Not that I'm arguing for a mount option (this should be sticky), but we've had plenty of fs parsed mount options with common semantics. > It feels like this is something that needs to be done on the block > layer. IOW, maybe add generic block layer ioctls or a per-device sysfs > entry that allows to turn atomic writes on or off. That information > would then also potentially available to the filesystem to e.g., > generate an info message during mount that hardware atomics are used or > aren't used. Because ultimately the block layer is where the decision > needs to be made. The block layer just passes things through.
