From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: utimensat EACCES vs. EPERM in 4.8+
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:09:43 +0100
Message-ID: <20170131120929.GE29227@rei.lan>
References: <18a5b416-ad6a-e679-d993-af7ffa0dcc10@redhat.com>
 <CAOssrKfb1-C8c=9bAPiairh+Lyf=w28r+RjSXTLQcQZ-=eWMRA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKgNAkjTkBMY0wrj3wsH39YF=bHp=8mbYrXkSPzn0X4ezfso1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <280513509.810300.1484639500985.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
 <20170117075702.GB10417@rei.lan>
 <CAOssrKd32K-e5794m9KOjrMm_E3VZ7P-bvZW2P8UpGFTOgi8JQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <cb15e28d-8c5e-e3d7-441a-9165c4e57133@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cb15e28d-8c5e-e3d7-441a-9165c4e57133-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
To: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, Jan Stancek <jstancek-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, viro <viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org>, guaneryu-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, ltp-cunTk1MwBs91InPhgRC9rw@public.gmane.org, Linux API <linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>, Dave Chinner <dchinner-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

Hi!
> All of this said, I still don't know whether reverting the patch
> is warranted...

Ping.

What shall we do with the failing testcase?

I guess that since the discussion withered the patch will stay in kernel
as it is and the manual needs to be updated...

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org