This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 0/6] Extended file stat system call
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: David Howells <dhowells at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond dot Myklebust at netapp dot com>, Steve French <smfrench at gmail dot com>, "linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "linux-nfs at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-nfs at vger dot kernel dot org>, "linux-cifs at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-cifs at vger dot kernel dot org>, "samba-technical at lists dot samba dot org" <samba-technical at lists dot samba dot org>, "linux-ext4 at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-ext4 at vger dot kernel dot org>, "wine-devel at winehq dot org" <wine-devel at winehq dot org>, "kfm-devel at kde dot org" <kfm-devel at kde dot org>, "nautilus-list at gnome dot org" <nautilus-list at gnome dot org>, "linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-api at vger dot kernel dot org>, "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Extended file stat system call
- References: <1335460011.9701.30.camel@lade.trondhjem.org><20120419140558.17272.74360.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk><CAH2r5ms4WQV3DnTvqNN=2N71Cj8UHwj8Z6+RHXgrAOv6mSoyQg@mail.gmail.com><20656.1335450358@redhat.com><CAH2r5mv1Lijdwk5zsQwYJr4Etb6fhrRyNXm-iFCQX+HecboGrQ@mail.gmail.com><1335453958.9701.10.camel@lade.trondhjem.org><CAH2r5mt5af-_hxBRKK72iD5Gr99bo91ec78Rov8EGVEx8=21mA@mail.gmail.com><1335459642.9701.27.camel@lade.trondhjem.org><CAH2r5mvmCfLrxRHje6Wx5X84zxPEHwRMUJGsjvWBujMu7w841w@mail.gmail.com><10104.1335477476@redhat.com>
> 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)?
It's certainly possible with symbol versioning, though it seems much more
likely that we'd stick with the existing struct stat and stat* interfaces
and only have the implementation using statx underneath (e.g. for new
machines or kernel ABIs where the kernel stops providing any calls except
for statxat), at least for the foreseeable future.
> 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?
POSIX requires that st_ino have a useful value for the standard *stat calls.
Thanks,
Roland