On Sat, May 27, 2000 at 02:53:38PM +0300, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2000 at 01:38:05PM +0200, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2000 at 09:07:58PM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > Look: there are other good reasons to change struct stat and I'm not too
> > > happy about doing it in $BIGNUM steps, each resulting in new triple of
> > > syscalls. If we are going to do that at all we'ld better do it at once.
> > We only need 3 more syscalls once - they'll suffice forever.
> What is wrong with *stat64() syscalls?
Not much. But perhaps they will not suffice forever.
st_ino 32 bits?
I can well imagine that we'll want more than that some time.
Insane amount of padding around dev_t? It seems we are going
in the direction of describing devices by a device path instead
of by an index number. Then 12 bytes is reasonable, but certainly
not excessive, and some day we'll want more.
I would have preferred to see stat64() as version 3 of versioned_stat.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST