From: David Howells Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] statx: Add a system call to make enhanced file info available Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 11:55:02 +0100 Message-ID: <17597.1463568902@warthog.procyon.org.uk> References: <3204439.9qcmCY96fi@wuerfel> <20160510070421.GB30896@infradead.org> <6897.1462868755@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20160512091141.GA22420@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, Arnd Bergmann , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3204439.9qcmCY96fi@wuerfel> Content-ID: <17596.1463568902.1@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I'm trying to understand what that means for the 64-bit time_t syscalls. > > The patch series I did last year had a replacement 'sys_newfstatat()' > syscall but IIRC no other stat variant, the idea being that we would > only need to provide this one to the libc and have user space emulate > the stat/fstat/lstat/fstatat variants based on that. > With the statx introduction, I was hoping to no longer have to add > that syscall but instead have libc do everything on top of sys_statx(). > > Do you think that is reasonable, given that we won't be allowed to > call any of the existing stat() variants for a y2038-safe libc build[1], > or should we plan to keep needing replacement fstatat (and possibly > stat/lstat/fstat) syscalls with 64-bit time_t even after statx() support > is merged into the kernel. Christoph?