From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Holler Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] WIP: Add syscall unlinkat_s (currently x86* only) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:21:12 +0100 Message-ID: <54D21CC8.4020705@ahsoftware.de> References: <1422896713-25367-1-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de> <1422896713-25367-2-git-send-email-holler@ahsoftware.de> <20150203060542.GZ29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <54D071AA.1030302@ahsoftware.de> <20150203075616.GA29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <54D08BF4.3000903@ahsoftware.de> <54D093A0.7090201@ahsoftware.de> <54D0C3B8.2050507@ahsoftware.de> <20150203174839.GD2509@thunk.org> <54D10D0E.8090204@ahsoftware.de> <20150203233332.GE29656@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <54D1F215.9030404@ahsoftware.de> <54D20F02.5050700@ahsoftware.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Kerrisk Cc: =?UTF-8?B?THVrw6HFoSBDemVybmVy?= , Al Viro , Theodore Ts'o , Linux-Fsdevel , Linux Kernel , Linux API List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Am 04.02.2015 um 14:06 schrieb Michael Kerrisk: > Alexander, > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Alexander Holler wrote: >> Am 04.02.2015 um 13:07 schrieb Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1 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 i= sn't in >> use by something else, the current contents will be wiped on traditi= onal >> harddrives. I assume that already fulfills more than 50% of use case= s of >> ordinary people. > > You are getting various feedback from people, that you seem to be ign= oring. I'm happy for all the feedback. But it doesn't help me. I'm not going t= o=20 spend the necessary time unpaid. =2E > 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 cluttere= d > 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=20 through in bug, look at http://lwn.net/Articles/462437/ what already=20 happened. > Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1 points out to you that getting a feature like this in= to 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=20 kernel. I don't care. I offered it for other users because I'm aware=20 that has become almost impossible for normal people to get something=20 into the kernel without spending an unbelievable amount of time most=20 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=20 kernel maintainer requests". Alexander Holler