[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201103142222.44598.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:22:44 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, G@...nk.org,
Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@...il.com>,
Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hch@....de, l@...per.es
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system
On Monday 14 March 2011 22:11:19 Ted Ts'o wrote:
> It wouldn't hurt to have a "flags" field which we could expand later
> --- but that can lead to portability headaches for userspace programs
> that don't know whether a particular kernel is going to support a
> particular flag or not. So it's certainly not a panacea.
I think adding an unused flags argument can't hurt.
We could be fancy and ignore half the bits but bail out on the other
half with -EINVAL. That would make it possible to add both compatible
(default being full sync on old kernels) and incompatible (getting
rejected on old kernels) flags.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists