lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Improving the Unix API
    On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Alexander Viro wrote:

    >
    >
    > On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, Doug Rabson wrote:
    >
    > > This looks viable as long as you don't use small integers to represent
    > > FL_UFS etc. Having a single header defining constants for all filesystems
    >
    > Erm... sizeof(int)==4. I doubt that you will need more.
    >
    > > just doesn't scale at all.
    > Sure. If you don't need fs-specific stuff - <sys/stat.h> and there
    > you go. If you need some particular fs - <sys/stat.h> and <sys/foo_fs.h>

    I'm talking about the concept of a header file containing something like:

    #define FL_VFS 0
    #define FL_FOOFS 1
    #define FD_BARFS 2
    ...

    not being scalable.

    Do you have a complete list of filesystem types? Are you prepared to act
    as an Assigned Number authority for that list. For this kind of problem,
    strings are a damn sight easier to manage in the long term.

    >
    > > You still want a clearly defined set of FS independant flags so that the
    > > application doesn't need to care what filesystem it is sitting on.
    >
    > And that's exactly the reason for FL_VFS vs. FL_FOOFS separation -
    > some applications should be able to talk with the filesystem in the
    > filesystem's terms *and* be sure that they will not mess with another fs;
    > the rest shouldn't care for fs differences at all (aside of "did the
    > sucker set the bits I wanted?" that you already have for SUID/SGID/sticky).
    >
    > I don't think that porting it to 4.4 will be difficult - all you
    > need is a way to tell VOP_SETATTR what level are you talking to (most
    > likely the same way as on the our side - add a field to the structure and
    > let the methods scratch their heads). I'm going to do the Linux variant
    > and see how it will work. If somebody wants to do it with *BSD - fine, it
    > shouldn't be a problem.

    I'm sure the api would be easy to port. I wouldn't accept any api for
    FreeBSD which involved assigning numbers to filesystem types. It was too
    painful to rid it of the last set of numbers from the old mount(2) call.

    --
    Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com
    Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037



    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.022 / U:13.192 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site