[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b5580c6-e163-0404-17e4-6c1c3777bc76@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 21:19:31 +0200
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc: mtk.manpages@...il.com, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, hch@...radead.org
Subject: Re: Unchecked flags in statx(2) [Should be fixed before 4.11-final?]
Hello Andreas,
On 04/21/2017 08:16 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 04/21/2017 03:01 PM, David Howells wrote:
>>> Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>>> (3) There's no problem with asking for extra bits, even if the running
>>> kerneldoes not support them, because the kernel tells you in its
>>> response what fields it actually gave you.
>>
>> It's this piece that I overlooked. Makes sense, of course.
>> Sorry for the noise!
>
> I agree with David that we don't want to return an error if the application
> asks for more bits than the kernel supports, otherwise the interface would
> be useless.
Yes, it's clear to me now.
> Maybe this implies that this needs to be explained more clearly in the
> statx man page?
Precisely; my thought also.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists