[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878t2wb4dr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:22:08 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: statx(2) API and documentation
* Andreas Dilger:
>> So what's the point exactly?
>
> Ah, I see your point... STATX_ALL seems to be mostly useful for the kernel
> to mask off flags that it doesn't currently understand. It doesn't make
> much sense for applications to specify STATX_ALL, since they don't have any
> way to know what each flag means unless they are hard-coded to check each of
> the STATX_* flags individually. They should build up a mask of STATX_* flags
> based on what they care about (e.g. "find" should only request attributes
> based on the command-line options given).
Could you remove it from the UAPI header? I didn't want to put it
into the glibc header, but was overruled.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists