On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 03:54:01PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 09/20/2017 01:17 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > There might be some tricky bits will be if glibc feels it needs to > > override the values returned by the kernel (if it believes it may > > impose some limitations due to its implementation). Also, not all > > file systems will implement some or all pathconf parameters initially > > (or perhaps ever). So should the VFS be responsible for returning > > some intelligent defaults, or glibc? > > I'd prefer if we could export pathconfat directly on the glibc side, without > any emulation, and have the application deal with ENOSYS. > > We would use it to implement parts of pathconf/fpathconf if available, but I > don't think we should copy the existing emulation for pathconfat because > every time we add such emulation, it comes back to haunt us. Fair enough, I'll get back with some kernel code. Thanks! -Lukas
