From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] add f_flags to struct statfs(64) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 21:05:38 +1000 Message-ID: <20100629110538.GO28364@laptop> References: <20100626093507.GB26371@lst.de> <60FB0305-A632-4A63-9BD8-DA07CC69B7D7@dilger.ca> <4C28FD98.1010300@redhat.com> <20100629085759.GN28364@laptop> <4C29C3F9.7030805@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andreas Dilger , Christoph Hellwig , viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Ulrich Drepper Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54494 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754652Ab0F2LFo (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:05:44 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C29C3F9.7030805@redhat.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 02:59:21AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 06/29/2010 01:57 AM, Nick Piggin wrote: > > ST_VALID is required to differentiate between no flags, and > > flags field unsupported of course. > > Not needed if a new syscall would be used. True, but we have the spare fields. > > At least from 2.4.0 does memset it. 2.2.26 does not. Can you > > live with that? > > We still support building glibc for everything from linux 2.0 on, at > least for x86. I really have no idea whether such old kernels are still > in use and if yes, whether userland gets updated. I wouldn't have a > problem with bumping the minimum required kernel version. I guess most would assume a 2.6 kernel nowadays? With either the new syscall or Christoph's patch, you need to keep the fallback around too.