On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Liu Bo <liubo2009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> +struct btrfs_ioctl_get_set_flags_args {
>>> + __u64 objectid;
>>> + __u64 flags;
>>> +};
>>> +
>> Shouldn't BTRFS_IOC_SUBVOL_GETFLAGS/BTRFS_IOC_SUBVOL_SETFLAGS also be
>> updated? Both still have __u64 as arguments. Also, my patches for the
>> new btrfs prop command group won't work anymore due to the change in
>> the ioctl. I'm in the middle of preparing btrfs send/receive to be
>> sent to the list...I also use the ioctls there and we should agree on
>> what to do with the ioctls before I send the patches out.
>
>
> Just drop this patch, I've discussed with Ilya about it (and also CCed you).
>
> If we've more properties pending to set/get, 'btrfs property' will be better.
>
> So please go on your work, I'll try to rebase my patch on yours.
Ah sorry, I've somehow missed that. Thanks for the clarification :)
>
> thanks,
> liubo
>
--
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
