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

[Abhishek Tiwari]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Eugene Syromyatnikov <evgsyr at gmail.com> wrote:

> So, after some thinking, I have the following scheme in mind:
>
> {old,}stat{,64}         TRACE_STAT              TST
%stat

> {old,}lstat{,64}        TRACE_LSTAT             TLST
%lstat
> {old,new,}fstat{,at}64  TRACE_FSTAT             TFST
%fstat

> {old,new,}{,l,f}stat{,x,at}{,64}
>                         TRACE_STAT_LIKE         TSTA ("stat alike")
%%stat

> statfs{,64}             TRACE_STATFS            TSF
%statfs

> fstatfs{,64}            TRACE_FSTATFS           TFSF

%fstatfs
> {,f}statfs{,64}, ustat  TRACE_STATFS_LIKE       TSFA ("statfs alike")
>
%%statfs

> Calls with bsd43_/osf_/posix_/svr4_/sysv_ prefixes go to the
> corresponding calls without them.
>
> I'm not really sure about {svr4,sysv}_{,f}statvfs, but they are decoded as
> printargs and looks like they should be related to {,f}statfs calls.
>
> Does it make any sense?

Yes, it looks good...:)
Please review that for the corresponding option in -e trace=option is
marked correct described after each of your naming scheme.
 Thank you.

Below is attached a patch corresonding to -e trace=%statfs option.
Please review.



> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: v5-0001-Implement-e-trace-statfs-option-for-tracing-statf.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 36643 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20170318/6c548836/attachment.bin>