Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Feb 2023 15:07:35 +0100 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] nolibc: Add statx() support to implement sys_stat() |
| |
On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 01:01:48PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Willy Tarreau > > Sent: 08 February 2023 08:20 > .... > > Also looking at the man page I see that statx() only appeared in 4.11, > > and here we're targetting userland so I'd rather keep a bit of margin > > when it comes to backwards compatibility, thus not dropping stat() and > > friends too early when not necessary. However using statx() by default > > when available sounds fine to me! > > Does that really matter? > Isn't 'nolibc' really just used for programs built in the > kernel source tree to be release/run with the current kernel?
Not just that even if mostly related, and even in such a case we'd rather maintain a low level of breakage when it doesn't require any effort (and moving the ifdef __NR_statx up 20 lines is perfectly within what I consider low effort).
> I also wonder if building a 'mini_libc.a' that the programs > can be linked against might be easier than having to > generate inline versions of everything?
It's another option but a different approach. There are pros and cons to different approaches. For this, better not reinvent the wheel, there's already klibc that does this well. A few of us do value the simplicity of not having to pre-build anything before the test program, especially when running tests that cover multiple architectures and/or versions. I'm not saying it's a solution to everything at all, far from this (and the level of coverage of that code should be self-explanatory to remind anyone that it's not the goal). But when working on some small test programs it's quite handy like this.
Regards, Willy
| |