[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOssrKfS79=+F0h=XPzJX2E6taxAPmEJEYPi4VBNQjgRR5ujqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:14:02 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Karel Zak <kzak@...hat.com>,
Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] add statmnt(2) syscall
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 3:51 PM Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org> wrote:
> I really would prefer a properly typed struct and that's what everyone
> was happy with in the session as well. So I would not like to change the
> main parameters.
I completely agree. Just would like to understand this point:
struct statmnt *statmnt(u64 mntid, u64 mask, unsigned int flags);
What's not properly typed about this interface?
I guess the answer is that it's not a syscall interface, which will
have an added [void *buf, size_t bufsize], while the buffer sizing is
done by a simple libc wrapper.
Do you think that's a problem? If so, why?
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists