[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191219111949.auriw6biphxxvdng@wittgenstein>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:19:50 +0100
From: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
David Laight <david.laight@...lab.com>, dev@...ncontainers.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] openat2: minor uapi cleanups
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 09:55:28PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> While openat2(2) is still not yet in Linus's tree, we can take this
> opportunity to iron out some small warts that weren't noticed earlier:
>
> * A fix was suggested by Florian Weimer, to separate the openat2
> definitions so glibc can use the header directly. I've put the
> maintainership under VFS but let me know if you'd prefer it belong
> ot the fcntl folks.
>
> * Having heterogenous field sizes in an extensible struct results in
> "padding hole" problems when adding new fields (in addition the
> correct error to use for non-zero padding isn't entirely clear ).
> The simplest solution is to just copy clone(3)'s model -- always use
> u64s. It will waste a little more space in the struct, but it
> removes a possible future headache.
Am I imagining things or did I get the same patch series twice?
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists