On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 10:46:30AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:

On Thu, Jul 03, 2025 at 10:42:27AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 10:28 AM Christian Brauner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 11:37:50AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 02, 2025 at 03:43:28PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 2:40 PM Christian Brauner [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

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.

<nod> That looks good to me. :)

At worst you can always ask Linus "Hey I want to do a treewide name
change of $X to $Y, can I stuff that in at the very end of the merge
window?" and IME he'll let you do that.  Even better if someone keeps
him supplied with fresh change patches.

--D