> +#define BTRFS_IOC_NODATACOW _IO(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 13) > +#define BTRFS_IOC_DATACOW _IO(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 14) > +#define BTRFS_IOC_NODATASUM _IO(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 15) > +#define BTRFS_IOC_DATASUM _IO(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 16) Hmm. Do we really want 4 different ioctl commands to turn 2 features on and off? Surely we could have 1 ioctl which updates a bitfield? Or a ioctl that takes an explicit feature enum argument and a boolean which indicates that it should be enabled or not? (And is ioctl the right interface for this? maybe it should be xattr ops in some defined btrfs string namespace? I'm just making this up. I feel the the lack of a single comment in the patch, while in keeping with the existing precedent in btrfs, leaves a lot of room for wild speculation :)) - z -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
