On 4/21/07, Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
What I described is a supported feature, nothing more and nothing less. It's also relatively easy to handle this case correctly in glibc, e.g., [...]
This is only useful if the requirement of an ordered /proc/mounts is part of the kernel ABI. I.e., until somebody specifies (in the sources, in kernel docs, I don't care where exactly) that the entries in /proc/mounts appear in the order in which the mounts happened this change is not better than the current code. I have never found such an assurance.
This is what POSIX says about statvfs / fstatvfs: > It is unspecified whether all members of the statvfs structure have > meaningful values on all file systems.
Sure, just like POSIX in many other place leaves things unspecified. This does not change the fact that we do a good job now. You try to use this wording to excuse the fact that you want to make the results worse than they are now. That's *not* the intend of this wording.
In my opinion, the advantage of not reporting bogus pathnames in /proc/mounts by far outweighs the problems is sometimes causes for fstatvfs().
Hell no. It is never acceptable to deliberately break compatibility. Effects of bugs on the ABI might change but this is not the case here. This is an interface which forever displayed the information in this form and it is correct and useful. - 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
