From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753099AbcEINAb (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2016 09:00:31 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:56549 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752214AbcEINA2 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2016 09:00:28 -0400 Organization: Red Hat UK Ltd. Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SI4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 3798903 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <31651.1462798652@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <31651.1462798652@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20160508083543.GA14316@infradead.org> <20160429125736.23636.47874.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20160429125743.23636.85219.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-afs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] statx: Add a system call to make enhanced file info available MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <31872.1462798825.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 14:00:25 +0100 Message-ID: <31873.1462798825@warthog.procyon.org.uk> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Mon, 09 May 2016 13:00:27 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org David Howells wrote: > > > st_gen is > > > the inode generation number, st_btime is the file creation time, st_version > > > is the data version number (i_version), > > > > Please define semantics for st_gen and st_version. > > I've been asked to drop st_gen for security reasons. > > I can't offhand think of a way to define st_version (or i_version, for that > matter) that would be consistent across all filesystems. I would lean towards > "gets incremented monotonically by 1 for each data write operation committed, > but not for any metadata operations", but I'm fairly certain this won't jibe > with disk operations. I meant disk filesystems that we have now, not disk operations. David