[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] File flags handling - proposal for API.

On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> That's why I had the new flags through a pointer also: not only can the
> pointer be NULL, but it implies that we can more easily extend the set of
> bits.

Oho... fchflags == setsockopt? It may make sense, but... definitely queer.

> HOWEVER. I don't think we want all that many bits at all. My preferred
Oh, yes.
> suggestion is to go with
> u32 generic_bits;
> u32 fs_bits;
> and NOTHING more. Otherwise we'll just encourage people to go crazy with
> the bits, and I do not want that.
> (This is why I hate code that tries to be too generic and take everything
> into account - it's not the code that is bad, but it's the _implication_
> of the code that I dislike).

<AOL></AOL> We are *not* bound by "GNU coding style". Featuritis is *bad*
thing and supporting it... No, thanks.

> In fact, maybe we should codify it with a structure:
> struct file_flags {
> unsigned int generic_flags;
> unsigned int fs_specific_flags;
> };
> and just pass in the structure pointer.
> > Hmm... Methink I know what should be done here:
> > chflags(name, level, old, new) where level being either FL_VFS or
> > FL_EXT2 or FL_UFS, etc. IOW, the scheme similar to setsockopt().
> I would not be disappointed with that kind of approach either. But if so,
> do limit the flags to 32 bits (and then if somebody _really_ wants to go
> wild, he can just specify multiple "levels").
> Oh, and if you do this, please reserve leves 0-255 or something like that
> for "generic" flags. I may not like excessive generic features, but if
> done, they should at least be done _right_.

OK, I'll go for that variant. Unless we want to overload {set/get}sockoptions
and add missing calls to the set. Dunno... while this has some merit
(essentially we want the same kind of control with s/protocol family/filesystem/
and s/SOL_SOCKET/FL_VFS/, moreover, some fcntl() applications could find
the place in the same space) I'm *not* sure that it's good. It would make
more sense if we didn't have old binaries around and could kill ioctl(2)
and friends for good. -ENOSUCHLUCK...
Up to you. I think that chflags(name, level, old, new) is the
right variant, so unless you are *really* interested in extending
setsockopt() API to files I'll go for it. Comments?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.051 / U:8.344 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site