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

[Abhishek Tiwari]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Dmitry V. Levin <ldv at altlinux.org> wrote:
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Strace-devel mailing list
> Strace-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel
>

As I read in -e trace=%sched mailing list, the vision is to create
classes that can support a particular kind of syscall across different
versions/flavours of linux, so in my opinion going with the narrower
class would help better to debug while it will create a lot of classes
to remember.