On Fri, 30 May 2014, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > a) is this the right approach in general? The previous discussion > pointed this way, but there may be other opinions. The syscall changes seem like the sort of thing I'd expect, although patches adding new syscalls or otherwise affecting the kernel/userspace interface (as opposed to those relating to an individual filesystem) should go to linux-api as well as other relevant lists. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [RFC 11/32] xfs: convert to struct inode_time, Theodore Ts'o |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] xfstests: f2fs support, jaegeuk |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS filesystem claims to be mounted after a disconnect, Martin Papik |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC 00/32] making inode time stamps y2038 ready, Arnd Bergmann |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |