Re: statx manpage

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:25:26PM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> > That means a filesystem can't simply return non-basic data unconditionally if
> > possible.  I prefer letting it do so if it doesn't incur any extra I/O
> > overheads.
> 
> This seems like it will lead to userspace expecting certain fields to
> just be there, and a lot harder to properly verify for tests.  Which btw
> we all need for these odd behaviors.  If we can't get them any time soon
> (e.g. before -rc6) I think we'll simply have to revert statx instead of
> leaving this untested mess in the tree.

Have you reviewed the manpage yet?

David



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux