From: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@yahoo.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [rfc] new stat*fs-like syscall?
To: Brad Boyer <flar@allandria.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20100705205806.GA12517@cynthia.pants.nu>
References: <20100624131455.GA10441@laptop> <7897.1277531612@jrobl> <20100626093544.GA27715@infradead.org> <13226.1277556884@jrobl> <20100705205806.GA12517@cynthia.pants.nu>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:31:30 +0900
Message-ID: <6419.1278372690@jrobl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1255
Lines: 26


Brad Boyer:
> I would suggest making it an inode operation if we do actually add it. Most
> cases are going to be per super-block, but it might be easier to transparently
> handle things like _PC_PIPE_BUF in glibc if it could call an fpathconf type
> system call on the pipe fd. I haven't looked at the current glibc code for
> that particular selector. The only one I looked at in any detail was
> _PC_LINK_MAX, which is the one you already discussed and is obviously a
> per-sb option. The only drawback I can see is that making it an inode
> operation would make the vfs_pathconf fail on a negative dentry, but that
> seems like a very strange thing to support in any case.

Recently the size of the pipe buffer becomes customizable, doesn't it?
For _PC_PIPE_BUF, fpathconf should issue fcntl(F_GETPIPE_SZ).

For negative dentry, it should be supported as long as some
standard/specification doesn't prohibit explicitly. So I still think
statfs is the best place to implement _PC_LINK_MAX.


J. R. Okajima
--
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/