[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100705205806.GA12517@cynthia.pants.nu>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 13:58:06 -0700
From: Brad Boyer <flar@...andria.com>
To: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [rfc] new stat*fs-like syscall?
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 09:54:44PM +0900, J. R. Okajima wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig:
> > That's really job for a pathconf system call that allows quering random
> > paramters.
>
> Do you mean it should be implemented such like this?
> vfs_pathconf(struct dentry, int parm)
> --> return d_sb->s_op->pathconf(parm)
I would suggest making it an inode operation if we do actually add it. Most
cases are going to be per super-block, but it might be easier to transparently
handle things like _PC_PIPE_BUF in glibc if it could call an fpathconf type
system call on the pipe fd. I haven't looked at the current glibc code for
that particular selector. The only one I looked at in any detail was
_PC_LINK_MAX, which is the one you already discussed and is obviously a
per-sb option. The only drawback I can see is that making it an inode
operation would make the vfs_pathconf fail on a negative dentry, but that
seems like a very strange thing to support in any case.
> I am afraid it is overdesign because the actual parameter(for FS) is
> _PC_LINK_MAX only. All other params are already handled by VFS, glibc or
> sb->statfs.
Brad Boyer
flar@...andria.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists