[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20131121151044.8bbc8cbf38754803915471ef@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:10:44 +1100
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dhowells@...hat.com,
zab@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz, luto@...capital.net, mszeredi@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] vfs: add renameat2 syscall
Hi all,
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 14:01:45 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
>
> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
>
> Add new renameat2 syscall, which is the same as renameat with an added
> flags argument.
>
> Pass flags to vfs_rename() and to i_op->rename() as well.
>
> All filesystems check flags and return -EOPNOTSUPP for unsupported flags.
Can we please consider doing this slightly slower (and avoiding
conflicts/missed new uses etc) by creating a new i_op callback and only
implementing this when necessary?
From past experience, I can just about guarantee that the patch as it is
will cause conflicts (for me in linux-next if noone else) and a new use
case will turn up before (or during) the next merge window.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists