Re: [PATCH 1/5] WIP: Add syscall unlinkat_s (currently x86* only)

[Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de>]

Am 04.02.2015 um 14:06 schrieb Michael Kerrisk:
> Alexander,
>
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> wrote:
>> Am 04.02.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Lukáš Czerner:
>>
>>> The fact is that the current patches are useless for anything other
>>> than proof-of-concept. Now you know more that needs to be done or
>>
>>
>> That's wrong. The patches already work. If you delete a file which isn't in
>> use by something else, the current contents will be wiped on traditional
>> harddrives. I assume that already fulfills more than 50% of use cases of
>> ordinary people.
>
> You are getting various feedback from people, that you seem to be ignoring.

I'm happy for all the feedback. But it doesn't help me. I'm not going to 
spend the necessary time unpaid.
.
> Al Viro, in his curmedgeonly way, points out that the problems are
> much deeper than you realize. He does not say so explicitly, but I
> imagine his point is that he does not want to see the kernel cluttered
> with "partial" solutions that will simply increase the maintenance
> burden in the long term, and leave bugs to be fixed further down the
> line. You seem not to be listening.

It doesn't help me nor anyone else. As Eric Sandeen made me aware 
through in bug, look at http://lwn.net/Articles/462437/ what already 
happened.

> Lukáš points out to you that getting a feature like this into the
> kernel is complex process. You seem unwilling to hear that, and still
> just want your partial solution.

Wrong. I don't want my partial solution to be part of the official 
kernel. I don't care. I offered it for other users because I'm aware 
that has become almost impossible for normal people to get something 
into the kernel without spending an unbelievable amount of time most 
people can't afford to spend.

> I tell you that discussions of APIs should CC linux-api, which I am
> now CCing into this thread, again, because, again, you're not
> listening to feedback.

Please don't confuse "not listening" with "unable to fulfill Linux 
kernel maintainer requests".

Alexander Holler