Re: [PATCH -V7 6/9] ext4: Add get_fsid callback

[Aneesh Kumar K. V]

On Fri, 14 May 2010 11:44:04 +1000, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:02:52PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 May 2010 13:11:33 +1000, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 09:20:41PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/ext4/super.c |   15 +++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > > index e14d22c..fc7d464 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > > > @@ -1049,6 +1049,19 @@ static int bdev_try_to_free_page(struct super_block *sb, struct page *page,
> > > >  	return try_to_free_buffers(page);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > > +static int ext4_get_fsid(struct super_block *sb, struct uuid *fsid)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
> > > > +	struct ext4_super_block *es = sbi->s_es;
> > > > +
> > > > +	memcpy(fsid->uuid, es->s_uuid, sizeof(fsid->uuid));
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * We may want to make sure we return error if the s_uuid is not
> > > > +	 * exactly unique
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_QUOTA
> > > >  #define QTYPE2NAME(t) ((t) == USRQUOTA ? "user" : "group")
> > > >  #define QTYPE2MOPT(on, t) ((t) == USRQUOTA?((on)##USRJQUOTA):((on)##GRPJQUOTA))
> > > > @@ -1109,6 +1122,7 @@ static const struct super_operations ext4_sops = {
> > > >  	.quota_write	= ext4_quota_write,
> > > >  #endif
> > > >  	.bdev_try_to_free_page = bdev_try_to_free_page,
> > > > +	.get_fsid	= ext4_get_fsid,
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > >  static const struct super_operations ext4_nojournal_sops = {
> > > > @@ -1128,6 +1142,7 @@ static const struct super_operations ext4_nojournal_sops = {
> > > >  	.quota_write	= ext4_quota_write,
> > > >  #endif
> > > >  	.bdev_try_to_free_page = bdev_try_to_free_page,
> > > > +	.get_fsid	= ext4_get_fsid,
> > > >  };
> > > 
> > > This all looks pretty simple - can you add XFS support to this
> > > interface (uuid is in XFS_M(sb)->m_sb.sb_uuid) so that it can be
> > > tested to work on multiple filesystems.
> > > 
> > > FWIW, I didn't get patch 0 of this series, so I'll comment on
> > > one line of it right here because it is definitely relevant:
> > > 
> > > > I am also looking at getting xfsprogs libhandle.so on top of these
> > > > syscalls.
> > > 
> > > If you plan to modify libhandle to use these syscalls, then you need
> > > to guarantee:
> > > 
> > > 	1. XFS support for the syscalls
> > > 	2. the handle format, lifecycle and protections for XFS
> > > 	   handles are *exactly* the same as the current XFS
> > > 	   handles.  i.e. there's a fixed userspace API that
> > > 	   cannot be broken.
> > > 	3. you don't break any of the other XFS specific handle
> > > 	   interfaces that aren't implemented by the new syscalls
> > > 	3. You don't break and existing XFS utilites - dump/restore,
> > > 	   and fsr come to mind immediately.
> > > 	4. that you'll fix the xfstests that may break because of the
> > > 	   change
> > > 	5. that you'll write new tests for xfstests that validates
> > > 	   that the libhandle API works correctly and that handle
> > > 	   formats and lifecycles do not get accidentally changed in
> > > 	   future.
> > > 
> > > That's a lot of work and, IMO, is completely pointless. All we'd get
> > > out of it is more complexity, bloat, scope for regressions and a
> > > biger test matrix, and we wouldn't have any new functionality to
> > > speak of.
> > 
> > getting libhandle.so to work with the syscall is something that is
> > suggested on the list. The goal is to see if syscall achieve everything
> > that XFS ioctl does
> 
> Ok, I didn't know that, but the question still stands. The XFS ioctl
> cannot go away any time soon (we basically have to support it
> forever), so why should we be writing a new, redundant
> kernel API for this functionality that is going not generally going
> to be directly accessed by userspace developers?
> 
> APIs are hard to get right - moving and modifying kernel code to be
> generic is easy in comparison, and also somethign we can easily fix
> if we get it wrong the first time. Make a mistake with a syscall
> API, and we are stuck with it forever.
> 
> Might I suggest a slightly different approach, then? That is,
> separate the two parts of making the XFS handle code generic and
> providing a new API?  We don't lose anything by separating them - we
> don't introduce any new APIs that have to be supported in the first
> step, nor does the functionality get delayed by API discussions.
> However, we still gain immediate widespread support for handles through
> the libraries *already shipping* in every major distro, and that
> doesn't get held up by discussions around what the API should look
> like.
> 
> Then we can work on getting a new API right - we're going to be
> stuck with it forever, so it's probably better to work out how the
> interface will be used outside libhandle. A new application using it
> would be a great example - it's rare that an API created with only
> one user is going to be a good API when more developers try to make
> use of it for new applications.
> 
> There is precedence here - the FIFREEZE ioctl for freezing/thawing
> filesystems from userspace Ñs the API that XFS has been using for
> years (XFS_IOC_FREEZE) to provide the functionality. It got promoted
> to the VFS when other filesystems needed userspace freezing
> capabilities, but only after new syscalls were proposed first.  The
> result of using the existing interface was that freeze/thaw for any
> capable filesystem was immediately availble using xfs_freeze or
> xfs_io - there was no lag to userspace support in distro's, no
> problems having to detect and support multiple interfaces depending
> on what the kernel supported, etc. Overall it made things much
> simpler and easier to manage and test....
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 

Howabout continuing with syscall patchset trying to see if we can get it
merged in the next merge window. If it appears that a merge in the next
merge window is difficult, I can definitely try the ioctl approach you
outlined above

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