Re: [PATCH] io: Do not implement fstat with fstatat

[Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>]

* Adhemerval Zanella Netto:

> On 11/09/23 16:32, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 06:11, Adhemerval Zanella Netto
>> <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I used the same fstatat logic, but using __NR_fstat should be fine.
>> 
>> I think you should keep using the same logic as in fstatat().
>> 
>> Using "#ifdef __NR_newfstatat" basically checks for "not stat64".
>> 
>> So, for example, x86-64 (and x64) have __NR_newfstatat, but 32-bit
>> i386 has __NR_fstatat64.
>> 
>> Now, maybe the other tests effectively already capture this (ie I
>> suspect FSTATAT_USE_STATX may already be the thing that makes 32-bit
>> i386 different), but I do think it's actually better the way it was.
>
> The FSTATAT_USE_STATX already handles it, and there is a explicit comment
> later at !FSTATAT_USE_STATX for which ABIs are affected regarding glibc
> support.  So either way (check __NR_newfstat and __NR_fstat) should be
> ok.

If __NR_newfstatat is clear to the subject matter experts, I won't
object to it.  But please add a comment.

Thanks,
Florian