On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 09:04:50AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> - statlite
>
> The concept generally makes sense. The specified details are however
> very wrong. Any statlite call should operate on the normal
> OS-specified stat structure and have the mask of flags as an
> additional argument. Because of that you can only specific
> existing posix stat values as mandatory, but we should have an
> informal agreement that assigns unique mask values to extensions.
> This allows applications to easily fall back to stat on operating
> systems not supporting the flags variant, and also allows new
> operating systems to implement stat using the flags variant.
> While we're at it statlight is a really bad name for this API,
> following that *at APIs it should probably be {l,f,}statf.
Just thinking about the need to add another half a dozend syscalls for this.
What about somehow funneling this into the flags argument of the {f,l,}statat
syscalls?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
