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

[Abhishek Tiwari]

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Abhishek Tiwari
<erabhishektiwarics at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Please Reply.