Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750726AbWBMPhE (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:37:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750741AbWBMPhE (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:37:04 -0500 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.202]:41151 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750726AbWBMPhC (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:37:02 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DmthJWPsxOlzzYuc5WTYhZfI1h+iQQBT+zaolWcHNYdVoKq8LNly/oaSopwOl6HO4K3BYFNb0l/LY4azb9f/JBo9ZcZQaWJc1HITgI5Kw/RYPoubTFOdA44e7RQPScNkMULWRuXR0hnMb9kP0zmS3NYn0kUpTnhYSBA9Yj5+37I= Message-ID: <43F0A760.90405@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:36:00 -0500 From: Florin Malita User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050720) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joerg Schilling CC: diegocg@gmail.com, tytso@mit.edu, peter.read@gmail.com, mj@ucw.cz, matthias.andree@gmx.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jim@why.dont.jablowme.net, jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de Subject: Re: CD writing in future Linux (stirring up a hornets' nest) References: <43EC71FB.nailISD31LRCB@burner> <20060210114721.GB20093@merlin.emma.line.org> <43EC887B.nailISDGC9CP5@burner> <43EC8E18.nailISDJTQDBG@burner> <43EC93A2.nailJEB1AMIE6@burner> <20060210141651.GB18707@thunk.org> <43ECA3FC.nailJGC110XNX@burner> <20060210145238.GC18707@thunk.org> <43ECA934.nailJHD2NPUCH@burner> <20060210172428.6c857254.diegocg@gmail.com> <43F063A8.nailKUS7174MV@burner> In-Reply-To: <43F063A8.nailKUS7174MV@burner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 963 Lines: 35 Joerg Schilling wrote: >>Could you explain why stat->st_dev / stat->st_ino POSIX semantics forces >>POSIX implementations to have a stable stat->st_rdev number? >> >> > >I was never talking about stat->st_rdev > > This is blatantly incorrect. You *were* talking about stat->st_rdev: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/2/10/143 On 2/10/06, *Joerg Schilling* wrote: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > The struct stat->st_rdev field need to be stable too to comply to POSIX? Correct. J?rg You may claim you *never meant to* or you *never realized* you were talking about, but you can't say you never talked about it - that's an outright lie. -- fm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/