On Tue, 13 May 2025 at 09:39, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No, the xattr interface is ugly as hell and I don't want it used as a > generic information transportation information interface. And I don't > want a single thing that sets a precedent in that direction. You are getting emotional and the last messages from you contain zero technical details. I know about the buffer sizing one, can you describe your other gripes? > > But if the data is inherently variable sized, adding specialized > > interface is not going to magically solve that. > > > > Instead we can concentrate on solving the buffer sizing problem > > generally, so that all may benefit. > > The xattr system call as far as I'm concerned is not going to be pimped > to support stuff like that. Heh? IIRC there were positive reactions to e.g. "O_XATTR", it just didn't get implemented. Can try to dig this up from the archives. > Then by all means we can come up with a scheme in procfs that displays > this hierarchically if we have to. Yeah, perhaps it's doable. Thanks, Miklos
