On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 09:43:43AM +0100, David Howells wrote: > Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > All of these are easily available. But why special case them so that > > userspace must not ask for them? This makes an otherwise totally > > regular interface special now. Note that filesystems could always fill > > it out anyway and set it in the return mask. > > Because it would be a waste of bits in the mask. Is there a point in having > bits that are always going to be set unconditionally when we can just > *document* that these few fields are always going to be set. And what exaxtly is the cost of these bits? > So yes, you can look on it as there are special cases. However, if I can drop > stat emulation support, everything resolves down to the following classes: > > (1) Stuff that's unconditional: st_dev, st_blksize, st_information (maybe). > > (2) st_mode & S_IFMT. Unconditional or conditional? I'm not sure. > > (3) Stuff that's conditional: st_mode & ~S_IFMT, st_rdev, st_ino, ... > Basically everything else. If we at least go down to one set of conditional and one optional that's at least much better than what we currently have. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
