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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux