[Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] The reflink(2) system call v4.

[Jonathan Corbet]

On Tue, 19 May 2009 12:32:44 -0700
Joel Becker <Joel.Becker at oracle.com> wrote:

> 	I considered that, but really a process specifying
> REFLINK_ATTR_ALL wants a complete snapshot.  So if we add things to our
> inodes later, and then you have an old program asking for "a complete
> snapshot", it won't get it.  It'll get a partial snapshot, missing the
> things we added later.
> 	Conversely, a newer program that knows about the new things will
> get an error on an older kernel when it asks for the complete snapshot.

Yep, that's why I'd suggested carving out a set of bits rather larger
than the ones specified now.  That would allow any future flags to be
included in the REFLINK_ATTR_ALL "space" if that seemed like the right
thing to do.  It would be forward and backward compatible.

Anything added outside that bit range would, presumably, be a more
significant change which should not carry forward or backward
automatically.

> 	You'll note I called this 'preserve', not 'flags'.  It's not a
> set of behavioral flags, it's a mask of attributes to preserve.

Understood, but that may not stop somebody else from trying to extend
the API in different directions in the future.  It seems like a way to
make life easier for that person when the time comes.

Just a thought, anyway; not something I'd make a fuss about.

jon