From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: *at syscalls for xattrs?
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:53:13 +0100
Message-ID: <20070715205313.GE21668@ftp.linux.org.uk>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707132228460.25352@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1756441AbXGOUx1@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707132228460.25352@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

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.

> 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?