From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicholas Miell Subject: Re: *at syscalls for xattrs? Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:13:21 -0700 Message-ID: <1184534001.2765.5.camel@entropy> References: <20070715205313.GE21668@ftp.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Engelhardt , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List To: Al Viro Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070715205313.GE21668@ftp.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2007-07-15 at 21:53 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 09:46:27PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > recently, the family of *at() syscalls and functions (openat, fstatat, > > etc.) have been added to Linux and Glibc, respectively. > > In short: I am missing xattr at functions :) > > No. They are not fscking forks. They are almost as revolting, but > not quite on the same level. I suspect he was asking for int getxattrat(int fd, const char *path, const char *name, void *value, size_t size, int flags) int setxattrat(int fd, const char *path, const char *name, void *value, size_t size, int xattrflags, int atflags) rather than the ability to access xattrs as files. > > BTW, why is fstatat called fstatat and not statat? (Same goes for > > futimesat.) It does not take a file descriptor for the file argument. > > Otherwise we'd also need fopenat/funlinkat, etc. Any reasons? > > Ulrich having an odd taste? Solaris compatibility. -- Nicholas Miell