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: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond dot Myklebust at netapp dot com>
- To: David Howells <dhowells at redhat dot com>
- Cc: 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: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:30:30 +0000
- 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>
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.
> th
> 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.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com
www.netapp.com