[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikoD1OPjVcyvAAJ0QO6dGJxv40Np6LgRQ7X4tMM@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 09:45:26 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Brad Boyer <flar@...andria.com>
Cc: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>,
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>
Subject: Re: [rfc] new stat*fs-like syscall?
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Brad Boyer <flar@...andria.com> 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
Download attachment "diff" of type "application/octet-stream" (5204 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists