Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

[Carlos O'Donell]

Kyle, Helge,

I've seen some recent churn regarding the kernel fcntl.h and F_* numbers.

If our numbers change please keep me in the loop so I can update the C
library side.

Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

[Kyle McMartin]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 03:22:15PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Kyle, Helge,
> 
> I've seen some recent churn regarding the kernel fcntl.h and F_* numbers.
> 
> If our numbers change please keep me in the loop so I can update the C
> library side.
> 

?

Unless you added things based on what's in git to libc, there's been no
changes recently. It would be fairly unwise to pick things out before
they've been in a released kernel, since they're subject to change up
until that point...

After that, the assignments are absolutely immutable...

--Kyle

Re: Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 03:22:15PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> Kyle, Helge,
>>
>> I've seen some recent churn regarding the kernel fcntl.h and F_* numbers.
>>
>> If our numbers change please keep me in the loop so I can update the C
>> library side.
>>
>
> ?

http://marc.info/?l=linux-api&m=125688056905828&w=2

> Unless you added things based on what's in git to libc, there's been no
> changes recently. It would be fairly unwise to pick things out before
> they've been in a released kernel, since they're subject to change up
> until that point...
>
> After that, the assignments are absolutely immutable...

Thanks.

Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

[James Bottomley]

On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:00 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 03:22:15PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >> Kyle, Helge,
> >>
> >> I've seen some recent churn regarding the kernel fcntl.h and F_* numbers.
> >>
> >> If our numbers change please keep me in the loop so I can update the C
> >> library side.
> >>
> >
> > ?
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-api&m=125688056905828&w=2

But this isn't parisc specific ... it's a bug CodeSourcery reported in
the ABI assignment in asm-generic.

We already look to have this sorted out locally in our fcntl.h ... so
we're not going to be changing anything, are we?  Or are you saying
(because we could get into trouble in future) that we should adopt the
asm generic ones?

James

Re: Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:00 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca> w=
rote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 03:22:15PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> >> Kyle, Helge,
>> >>
>> >> I've seen some recent churn regarding the kernel fcntl.h and F_* =
numbers.
>> >>
>> >> If our numbers change please keep me in the loop so I can update =
the C
>> >> library side.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ?
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-api&m=3D125688056905828&w=3D2
>
> But this isn't parisc specific ... it's a bug CodeSourcery reported i=
n
> the ABI assignment in asm-generic.

Yes, that's correct, the original issue doesn't apply to parisc.

I pull from kyle's tree here:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kyle/parisc-2.6.git

In kyle's tree I see:
"arch/parisc/include/asm/fcntl.h"
#define F_GETOWN_EX     15
#define F_SETOWN_EX     16

The original message that Joseph Myers at CodeSourcery posted here:
http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-api&m=3D125466028819859&w=3D2

Does not apply to us.

> We already look to have this sorted out locally in our fcntl.h ... so
> we're not going to be changing anything, are we? =A0Or are you saying
> (because we could get into trouble in future) that we should adopt th=
e
> asm generic ones?

I don't think we have to change anything.

It would probably be less maintenance for Kyle in the future if we
adopted the generic ones for future flags.

The message I referenced here:
http://marc.info/?l=3Dlinux-api&m=3D125688056905828&w=3D2

by Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, has a parisc specific piece=
 here:

~~~
diff --git a/arch/parisc/include/asm/fcntl.h b/arch/parisc/include/asm/=
fcntl.h
index 5f39d55..1e1c824 100644
--- a/arch/parisc/include/asm/fcntl.h
+++ b/arch/parisc/include/asm/fcntl.h
@@ -28,8 +28,6 @@
 #define F_SETOWN	12	/*  for sockets. */
 #define F_SETSIG	13	/*  for sockets. */
 #define F_GETSIG	14	/*  for sockets. */
-#define F_GETOWN_EX	15
-#define F_SETOWN_EX	16

 /* for posix fcntl() and lockf() */
 #define F_RDLCK		01
~~~

I don't know why he wants to remove bits from our fcntl.h.

The intent of my original email was to say "Hi! I'm the libc
maintainer, I'll fix things if you notice a problem."

I'm pretty sure I'm on linux-api, but I missed this issue.

Cheres,
Carlos.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc"=
 in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

[Helge Deller]

On 11/20/2009 11:57 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:23 PM, James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>  wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:00 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Kyle McMartin<kyle@mcmartin.ca>  wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 03:22:15PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>>> Kyle, Helge,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen some recent churn regarding the kernel fcntl.h and F_* numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>> If our numbers change please keep me in the loop so I can update the C
>>>>> library side.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-api&m=125688056905828&w=2
>>
>> But this isn't parisc specific ... it's a bug CodeSourcery reported in
>> the ABI assignment in asm-generic.
>
> Yes, that's correct, the original issue doesn't apply to parisc.
>
> I pull from kyle's tree here:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kyle/parisc-2.6.git
>
> In kyle's tree I see:
> "arch/parisc/include/asm/fcntl.h"
> #define F_GETOWN_EX     15
> #define F_SETOWN_EX     16
>
> The original message that Joseph Myers at CodeSourcery posted here:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-api&m=125466028819859&w=2
>
> Does not apply to us.
>
>> We already look to have this sorted out locally in our fcntl.h ... so
>> we're not going to be changing anything, are we?  Or are you saying
>> (because we could get into trouble in future) that we should adopt the
>> asm generic ones?
>
> I don't think we have to change anything.
>
> It would probably be less maintenance for Kyle in the future if we
> adopted the generic ones for future flags.
>
> The message I referenced here:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-api&m=125688056905828&w=2
>
> by Stephen Rothwell<sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, has a parisc specific piece here:
>
> ~~~
> diff --git a/arch/parisc/include/asm/fcntl.h b/arch/parisc/include/asm/fcntl.h
> index 5f39d55..1e1c824 100644
> --- a/arch/parisc/include/asm/fcntl.h
> +++ b/arch/parisc/include/asm/fcntl.h
> @@ -28,8 +28,6 @@
>   #define F_SETOWN	12	/*  for sockets. */
>   #define F_SETSIG	13	/*  for sockets. */
>   #define F_GETSIG	14	/*  for sockets. */
> -#define F_GETOWN_EX	15
> -#define F_SETOWN_EX	16
>
>   /* for posix fcntl() and lockf() */
>   #define F_RDLCK		01
> ~~~
>
> I don't know why he wants to remove bits from our fcntl.h.
>
> The intent of my original email was to say "Hi! I'm the libc
> maintainer, I'll fix things if you notice a problem."
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm on linux-api, but I missed this issue.
>
> Cheres,
> Carlos.

Hi Carlos,

FWIW, Stephen's patch has been applied to mainline (2.6.32-rc8) in the meantime...

Helge

Re: Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> FWIW, Stephen's patch has been applied to mainline (2.6.32-rc8) in the
> meantime...

Thanks Helge. Could you do some sleuthing for me? Were the F_SETOWN_EX
and F_GETOWN_EX ever in any released kernel?

Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

[Helge Deller]

On 11/29/2009 07:17 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Helge Deller<deller@gmx.de>  wrote:
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> FWIW, Stephen's patch has been applied to mainline (2.6.32-rc8) in the
>> meantime...
>
> Thanks Helge. Could you do some sleuthing for me? Were the F_SETOWN_EX
> and F_GETOWN_EX ever in any released kernel?

Those were added by this commit:

commit ba0a6c9f6fceed11c6a99e8326f0477fe383e6b5
Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Date:   Wed Sep 23 15:57:03 2009 -0700
     fcntl: add F_[SG]ETOWN_EX

Linux kernel 2.6.31 was tagged:
Date:   Wed Sep 9 15:13:59 2009 -0700
(according to the git-log of the top Makefile)

So I don't think they were ever in any released kernel.

Helge

Re: Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote:
> Those were added by this commit:
>
> commit ba0a6c9f6fceed11c6a99e8326f0477fe383e6b5
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Date: =A0 Wed Sep 23 15:57:03 2009 -0700
> =A0 =A0fcntl: add F_[SG]ETOWN_EX
>
> Linux kernel 2.6.31 was tagged:
> Date: =A0 Wed Sep 9 15:13:59 2009 -0700
> (according to the git-log of the top Makefile)
>
> So I don't think they were ever in any released kernel.

Thanks Helge. I'll make sure glibc gets adjusted according to the new n=
umbers.

Cheers,
Carlos.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc"=
 in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Changes to fcntl.h and F_* numbers?

[Kyle McMartin]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 08:55:41PM +0100, Helge Deller wrote:
> Those were added by this commit:
>
> commit ba0a6c9f6fceed11c6a99e8326f0477fe383e6b5
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Date:   Wed Sep 23 15:57:03 2009 -0700
>     fcntl: add F_[SG]ETOWN_EX
>
> Linux kernel 2.6.31 was tagged:
> Date:   Wed Sep 9 15:13:59 2009 -0700
> (according to the git-log of the top Makefile)
>

Helge is quite correct... I pointed this out in a previous email...