[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:2.355 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site