# Re: \[PATCH v6 6/6\] fs: introduce file\_getattr and file\_setattr syscalls

- From: Amir Goldstein \<amir73il@gmail.com\>
- Date: 2025-07-02 13:43:41 
- List: linux-api
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2025/07/316601
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-api/2025/06/316331/t.md

```text
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 2:40 PM Christian Brauner [ref] wrote:
>
> > Er... "fsx_fileattr" is the struct that the system call uses?
> >
> > That's a little confusing considering that xfs already has a
> > xfs_fill_fsxattr function that actually fills a struct fileattr.
> > That could be renamed xfs_fill_fileattr.
> >
> > I dunno.  There's a part of me that would really rather that the
> > file_getattr and file_setattr syscalls operate on a struct file_attr.
>
> Agreed, I'm pretty sure I suggested this during an earlier review. Fits
> in line with struct mount_attr and others. Fwiw, struct fileattr (the
> kernel internal thing) should've really been struct file_kattr or struct
> kernel_file_attr. This is a common pattern now:
>
> struct mount_attr vs struct mount_kattr
>
> struct clone_args vs struct kernel_clone_kargs
>
> etc.
>file_attr

I can see the allure, but we have a long history here with fsxattr,
so I think it serves the users better to reference this history with
fsxattr64.

That, and also, avoid the churn of s/fileattr/file_kattr/
If you want to do this renaming, please do it in the same PR
because I don't like the idea of having both file_attr and fileattr
in the tree for an unknown period.

Thanks,
Amir.
```