On 05/09/2017 07:37 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Oleksij Rempel <o...@pengutronix.de <mailto:o...@pengutronix.de>> wrote: On 05/02/2017 09:37 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote: Amir, Am 02.05.2017 um 09:19 schrieb Amir Goldstein: On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:03 AM, Richard Weinberger <rich...@nod.at <mailto:rich...@nod.at>> wrote: Am 24.04.2017 um 17:47 schrieb Richard Weinberger: So, if some flag should be implemented, who should do it? :) I'll not do it for you. ;) Please also see http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2 <http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=149327990608749&w=2> Richard, Considering the facts that: 1. I proposed the said flag and Al didn't think it was needed [1] 2. ext4 already sets s_uuid without any flag for a long time now 3. A similar patch was queued for v4.12 to set s_uuid for xfs without any flag I think it would be right to take Oleksij's patch as is. FYI, my current work on 'constant inode numbers for overlayfs' requires that underlying filesystem had set a non-zero s_uuid. Not sure if that matters for ubifs+overlayfs users. If VFS maintainers are fine with that, I'll take it. From UBIFS' POV it does not matter much. :-) Ping to VFS maintainers? What ping? Al made it clear that a flag is not needed. BTW, xfs s_uuid patch was merged to master.
I'm talking about ubifs patch.
