Re: [PATCH 0/6] Extended file stat system call

["Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 22:57 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Myklebust, Trond <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > You are still not explaining why they need to know the values at all? If
> > the values are bogus, then don't return them, and don't set the flag
> > that says they are being returned.
> th
> What if the xstat() and struct xstat eventually becomes what userspace uses as
> stat() (as a wrapper) and struct stat (if such a thing is possible with glibc
> versioning)?  Do older programs that think they're using stat() and don't know
> about the extra fields available expect to see a useful value in st_ino?

Does it really matter whether it is the kernel or userland that is
responsible for faking up inode numbers? If userland wants to use
xstat() in order to fake up a stat() call, then it gets to take
responsibility for the results.

-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx
www.netapp.com

��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���)��jg��������ݢj����G�������j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥