[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18142.1539964788@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:59:48 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/5] statx: add STATX_RESULT_MASK flag
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com> wrote:
> FUSE needs this, because it uses legacy inode initialization, that doesn't
> return a result_mask, so needs a refresh when caller asks for it with
> statx().
Can't you just make it up in fuse? Presumably, fuse doesn't support any of
the non-basic statx fields either?
> It might make sense later to promote this to a proper statx mask flag and
> return it in stx_mask to userspace.
That sounds kind of recursive - a bit in stx_mask would be saying whether or
not stx_mask can be used.
Besides, what would it mean if that bit says you can't use stx_mask? None of
the stx_* fields are valid?
> +#define STATX_RESULT_MASK STATX__RESERVED
Please don't use that bit.
Sorry, this patch doesn't make sense. Just set result_mask to
STATX_BASIC_STATS in fuse_fill_attr().
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists