From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] add f_flags to struct statfs(64) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:25:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20100629092558.GA27397@lst.de> References: <20100626093507.GB26371@lst.de> <60FB0305-A632-4A63-9BD8-DA07CC69B7D7@dilger.ca> <4C28FD98.1010300@redhat.com> <20100629085759.GN28364@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Ulrich Drepper , Andreas Dilger , Christoph Hellwig , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:37983 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754255Ab0F2J0T (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:26:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100629085759.GN28364@laptop> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 06:57:59PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:52:56PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On 06/28/2010 11:43 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > I would advocate at least an 8-bit magic value, if there is a concern > > > about this field not always being 0-filled on older kernels, or not > > > using any ST_VALID flag at all, if it was always zero-filled in the > > > past. > > ST_VALID is required to differentiate between no flags, and > flags field unsupported of course. Yes, that was my intention for it. > > > spare fields (if any)? > > At least from 2.4.0 does memset it. 2.2.26 does not. Can you > live with that? The spare fields in struct statfs have been zeroed since 2.3.99pre3-8, before that they were set to a pattern of 0xff.