On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Brad Boyer <flar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 08:31:30AM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
>> For negative dentry, it should be supported as long as some
>> standard/specification doesn't prohibit explicitly. So I still think
>> statfs is the best place to implement _PC_LINK_MAX.
>
> If we're going to be changing statfs (or adding a new system call)
> anyway, that does seem like a reasonable place to export this data
> along with whatever else gets added. With the various things that
> have been suggested, maybe we need something more like the stat
> replacement that has been getting discussed with the room for some
> larger optional fields and a way to request a specific set of fields.
Let's not overdesign things. Just do something like the attached
patch, which is the obvious and straightforward thing to do.
Overdesigning is a disease. It's fundamentally wrong.
(Yeah, yeah,. the patch is untested, and doesn't actually _fill_ the
new f_flags value, but that's left as a trivial exercise for the
reader.)
Linus
Attachment:
diff
Description: Binary data
