From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764373AbYDOCmQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:42:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761357AbYDOCmD (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:42:03 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:40969 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759827AbYDOCmB (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:42:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:41:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Davide Libenzi cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Arnd Bergmann , Al Viro , Michael Kerrisk , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [patch] F_GETPATH implementation (rev 2) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (LFD 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > This is a small patch to support BSD's F_GETPATH on Linux. > IMO the simplicity of the patch and the portability advantages makes it > worth it. I'll leave to others to further comments it. So, I'd like to know who (if anybody) really uses F_GETPATH. I think the patch is simple enough, and if there is a real program that is worth porting for which this actually matters, I don't really see any downsides. But I'd like to hear more about it, and I also wonder if others do it differently. Also, are there any other interfaces that other OS's use for this, do you know? Would be good to know before/if we decide to support something like this.. Linus