On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 11:14:29PM +0530, Abhishek Tiwari wrote: [...] > Is it fine to group statfs+ statfs64+ fstatfs + fstatfs64 + ustat as > %statfs or it should be (statfs+statfs64 + ustat) and > (fstatfs+ftsatfs64) i.e. two different classes ?
Well, I don't have a ready answer to this question. From one side, three narrow classes (%statfs == statfs+statfs64, %fstatfs == fstatfs+fstatfs64, and ustat itself) would be a finer instrument than a single wide class. I'm not sure whether narrow statfs classes will be of any practical use, though. If we've choosen this approach, we could use, say, %allstatfs as a name for the wide class. From another side, a single wide class is simpler to use. However, once %statfs is taken for the wide class, it wouldn't be easy to find a good alternative name if someday we decide to create narrow classes. Does anybody else have an opinion on this? -- ldv
pgpS924yIxbOj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel
