[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <7c98aac5-6b64-4f6b-b242-7ad3b8a334a8@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2023 09:06:24 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "chris.chenfeiyang" <chris.chenfeiyang@...il.com>,
"Willy Tarreau" <w@....eu>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"Feiyang Chen" <chenfeiyang@...ngson.cn>,
"Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
"Jiaxun Yang" <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] nolibc: Add statx() support to implement sys_stat()
On Wed, Feb 8, 2023, at 08:42, Feiyang Chen wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 11:31, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
>>
>> I generally agree with the Arnd's points overall and I'm fine with the
>> rest of your series. On this specific point, I'm fine with your proposal,
>> let's just start with sys_statx() only on this arch, please add a comment
>> about this possibility in the commit message that brings statx(),
>> indicating that other archs are likely to benefit from it as well, and
>> let's see after this if we can migrate all archs to statx.
>>
>
> We have a problem if we just start with sys_statx() only on this arch.
> When struct stat is not defined, what should we do with stat() in the
> nolibc selftest?
To clarify: your proposed implementation of the stat() function that
fills the nolibc 'struct stat' based on information from 'struct statx'
is fine here. Just remove the 'struct sys_stat_struct' definition
loongarch but keep 'struct stat'.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists