From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: Attempt at "stat light" implementation Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 00:18:24 +0400 Message-ID: <20090407201823.GA4162@ioremap.net> References: <20090407062356.GA1336463@fiona.linuxhacker.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Oleg Drokin Return-path: Received: from cs-studio.ru ([195.178.208.66]:34303 "EHLO tservice.net.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755229AbZDGUSe (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:18:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090407062356.GA1336463@fiona.linuxhacker.ru> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Oleg. On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 10:23:56AM +0400, Oleg Drokin (green@linuxhacker.ru) wrote: > I quickly realized that perhaps we can use just one extra syscall for fstat, and stat/lstat could be > implemented as statat with just current cwd, though I do not know how desirable that is. > > Also I though that it would be kind of useful to allow the bitmask to be compatible with existing statat > flags usage so that we do not need a new statat. What if instead you add single additional fsatat() flag and check provided stat structure for the data user requested to get? I.e. if i_size is not zero, than user wants to get it, the same applies to all other fields. -- Evgeniy Polyakov