From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] introduce sys_syncfs to sync a single file system Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:22:44 +0100 Message-ID: <201103142222.44598.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20110314131042.5a7fb32f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20110314211119.GC8120@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110314211119.GC8120@thunk.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ted Ts'o Cc: Andrew Morton , G@thunk.org, Indan Zupancic , Greg KH , Jonathan Nieder , Sage Weil , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Aneesh Kumar K. V" , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, hch@lst.de, l@jasper.es List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Monday 14 March 2011 22:11:19 Ted Ts'o wrote: > It wouldn't hurt to have a "flags" field which we could expand later > --- but that can lead to portability headaches for userspace programs > that don't know whether a particular kernel is going to support a > particular flag or not. So it's certainly not a panacea. I think adding an unused flags argument can't hurt. We could be fancy and ignore half the bits but bail out on the other half with -EINVAL. That would make it possible to add both compatible (default being full sync on old kernels) and incompatible (getting rejected on old kernels) flags. Arnd