[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] File flags handling - proposal for API.
Alexander Viro writes:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 1999, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:

>> NTFS has a 4th time stamp.
> Fsck, no. Not another OOB channel for whatever random bullshit
> somebody wants to push through. Not another ioctl() - we have
> enough mess already.

We could really use something that:

* comes in all the variants (FOO, lFOO, and fFOO)
* handles misc. junk like ioctl does()
* is tidy, unlike ioctl() -- size ought to be a parameter

>> HFS has type and creator data.
> No. Way. In. Hell. It's *not* a support for forks - if you want

Those are simple 32-bit values.

> Mac'n'dreck you know where to find it. Again, it's a *narrow* channel -
> here I completely agree with Linus. The goal being to reduce the bloody
> clutter, not to introduce one more dungheap a-la ioctl().

So developers are stuck with ioctl() + a new API.
They have to learn something new, but can't junk the cruft.

>> Oh, be sure to use a 64-bit inode if you return that data.
> I don't see any place for inumber there.

You started with "new_stat" for a name.

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:0.042 / U:11.376 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site