On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 
> > I still got qualms about this ioctl thing.  One is the security
> > aspect, but that could be dealt with.  The other is that I really
> > really don't want people to start implementing new custom ioctls for
> > their filesystems, as I think that way lies madness.  We could limit
> > ioctls to CUSE and that would be fine with me.  Or for non-CUSE users
> > we could enforce the "standard" format where the type and length is
> > encoded in the command number.
> 
> Is this enough to support the most useful/requested file system ioctls, 
> like FIEMAP?

Looking at FIEMAP patches...

No, FIEMAP doesn't seem fit in that category.  But FIEMAP has a
specific handler, so it would not get as far as the generic ioctl
handler anyway.  If we need FIEMAP support in fuse, that will need to
be handled independently of the generic ioctls (just like FIBMAP).

Miklos
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/