Andreas Dilger wrote:
Does this mean you are against the statlite() API entirely, or only against the document's use of the flag as a vague "accuracy" value instead of a hard "valid" value?
I'm against fuzzy values. I've no problems with a bitmap specifying that certain members are not wanted or wanted (probably the later, zero meaning the optional fields are not wanted).
IMHO, if the application doesn't need a particular field (e.g. "ls -i" doesn't need size, "ls -s" doesn't need the inode number, etc) why should these be filled in if they are not easily accessible? As for what is easily accessible, that needs to be determined by the filesystem itself.
Is the size not easily accessible? It would surprise me. If yes, then, by all means add it to the list. I'm not against extending the list of members which are optional if it makes sense. But certain information is certainly always easily accessible.
That was previously suggested by me already. IMHO, there should ONLY be a statlite variant of readdirplus(), and I think most people agree with that part of it (though there is contention on whether readdirplus() is needed at all).
Indeed. Given there is statlite and we have d_type information, in most situations we won't need more complete stat information. Outside of programs like ls that is.
Part of why I wished the lab guys had submitted the draft to the OpenGroup first is that this way they would have to be more detailed on why each and every interface they propose for adding is really needed. Maybe they can do it now and here. What programs really require readdirplus?
-- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖ - 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
