[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegviiy=9fru3zButbqLnhshH85srH3qyZO2zf-_RPqSs=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:40:40 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] uapi: deprecate STATX_ALL
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:35 PM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> +/*
>> + * This is deprecated, and shall remain the same value in the future. To avoid
>> + * confusion please use the equivalent (STATX_BASIC_STATS | STATX_BTIME)
>> + * instead.
>> + */
>> +#define STATX_ALL 0x00000fffU
>
> The comment is misleading. STATX_ALL is *not* equivalent to
> STATX_BASIC_STATS | STATX_BTIME, even though it might be numerically the
> same. You would need to update the comment when you add STATX_ATTRIBUTES
> to mention that also.
The definition of STATX_ALL is, and will remain, equivalent to
STATX_BASIC_STATS | STATX_BTIME.
What is misleading about this?
If you feel confused by this comment, then maybe I should just drop that part.
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists