Q: statfs related syscalls (was: Re: GSOC: Introduction)

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:14:29PM +0530, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
[...]
> Is it fine to group statfs+ statfs64+ fstatfs + fstatfs64 + ustat  as
> %statfs or it should be (statfs+statfs64 + ustat) and
> (fstatfs+ftsatfs64) i.e. two different classes ?

Well, I don't have a ready answer to this question.

From one side, three narrow classes (%statfs == statfs+statfs64,
%fstatfs == fstatfs+fstatfs64, and ustat itself) would be a finer
instrument than a single wide class.  I'm not sure whether narrow statfs
classes will be of any practical use, though.  If we've choosen this
approach, we could use, say, %allstatfs as a name for the wide class.

From another side, a single wide class is simpler to use.
However, once %statfs is taken for the wide class, it wouldn't be easy to
find a good alternative name if someday we decide to create narrow
classes.

Does anybody else have an opinion on this?


-- 
ldv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20170316/4983251d/attachment.bin>