Re: [PATCH 0/6] Extended file stat system call
- From: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond Myklebust netapp com>
- To: David Howells <dhowells redhat com>
- Cc: "linux-cifs vger kernel org" <linux-cifs vger kernel org>, "linux-nfs vger kernel org" <linux-nfs vger kernel org>, "nautilus-list gnome org" <nautilus-list gnome org>, "libc-alpha sourceware org" <libc-alpha sourceware org>, "kfm-devel kde org" <kfm-devel kde org>, "wine-devel winehq org" <wine-devel winehq org>, "samba-technical lists samba org" <samba-technical lists samba org>, Steve French <smfrench gmail com>, "linux-api vger kernel org" <linux-api vger kernel org>, "linux-fsdevel vger kernel org" <linux-fsdevel vger kernel org>, "linux-ext4 vger kernel org" <linux-ext4 vger kernel org>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Extended file stat system call
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:30:30 +0000
On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 22:57 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Myklebust, Trond <Trond Myklebust netapp com> wrote:
> > You are still not explaining why they need to know the values at all? If
> > the values are bogus, then don't return them, and don't set the flag
> > that says they are being returned.
> What if the xstat() and struct xstat eventually becomes what userspace uses as
> stat() (as a wrapper) and struct stat (if such a thing is possible with glibc
> versioning)? Do older programs that think they're using stat() and don't know
> about the extra fields available expect to see a useful value in st_ino?
Does it really matter whether it is the kernel or userland that is
responsible for faking up inode numbers? If userland wants to use
xstat() in order to fake up a stat() call, then it gets to take
responsibility for the results.
Linux NFS client maintainer
Trond Myklebust netapp com
] [Thread Prev