[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6419.1278372690@jrobl>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:31:30 +0900
From: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
To: Brad Boyer <flar@...andria.com>
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?
Brad Boyer:
> 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.
Recently the size of the pipe buffer becomes customizable, doesn't it?
For _PC_PIPE_BUF, fpathconf should issue fcntl(F_GETPIPE_SZ).
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.
J. R. Okajima
--
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