Re: [pseudo][PATCH] Fix to fcntl guts to ignore flags that can be ORed into cmd

[Will Page <will.page@ni.com>]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 02:24:26PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-09-15 at 18:10 -0500, Seebs wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:27:00 -0700
> > Will Page <Will.Page@ni.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > The fcntl guts switch on "cmd" parameter to identify the fcntl
> > > command being issued, but isn't aware of the file creation flags
> > > that
> > > can be ORed in.
> > This is true. I was, in fact, not aware of those flags. Looks
> > reasonable.
> 
> I tried adding this to a test build along with AlexK's epoll patch. It
> resulted in:
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__autobuilder.yocto.io_builders_nightly-2Dworld_builds_475_steps_BuildImages_logs_stdio&d=DwICaQ&c=I_0YwoKy7z5LMTVdyO6YCiE2uzI1jjZZuIPelcSjixA&r=-PS0OYZ7YP1crHfex64Ojw&m=xLMg1sihnYcY8mm3vbgoq_awtDy2SclWmfP3SxUNhq0&s=qFv8uK99a-cleN6VLJ7XYfBiLHrcTKtPo63E8FmGuX0&e= 
> 
> Any ideas why?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard

I'm sorry - I was looking over v2 of my patch, and something just wasn't
adding up.

pseudo already supports F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC (which turned out
to be the problematic command for me).  The problem was on my end - I
had two copies of the binary: one that was built on a system where
F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC was defined, and one built on a system where it wasn't.

I repeat, the problem was entirely on my end.  I respectfully retract my
patch, prior statements, and I thank you for your time.

Will Page