[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFfO_h6Lm0Tf39ejQ0kRBcQznSNmiS+PdixEi3GhMpA1xuD-FA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 22:07:51 +0600
From: Dorjoy Chowdhury <dorjoychy111@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Alexander Aring <alex.aring@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] open: new O_REGULAR flag support
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 9:55 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026, at 16:39, Dorjoy Chowdhury wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h
> > b/arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h
> > index 03dee816cb13..efd763335ff7 100644
> > --- a/arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h
> > +++ b/arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/fcntl.h
> > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> >
> > #define O_PATH 020000000
> > #define __O_TMPFILE 040000000
> > +#define O_REGULAR 060000000
>
> This is two bits, not one, and it overlaps with O_PATH|__O_TMPFILE.
>
oh right! Thanks for catching that.
> The other ones look like they are fine in this regard, but I'm
> still unsure if we should be using the next available bit, or
> reusing an unused lower bit, e.g. these bits removed in commit
> 41f5a81c07cd ("parisc: Drop HP-UX specific fcntl and signal flags"):
>
> -#define O_BLKSEEK 000000100 /* HPUX only */
> -#define O_RSYNC 002000000 /* HPUX only */
> -#define O_INVISIBLE 004000000 /* invisible I/O, for DMAPI/XDSM */
>
So should I use 000000100 or 0100000000 for parisc/*/fcntl.h (other
files are fine I guess) in v3? I am not sure if there's any objective
reason to use one over the other.
Regards,
Dorjoy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists