From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zytor.com (terminus.zytor.com [198.137.202.136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CDECF1DE4E1; Sat, 15 Nov 2025 22:29:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763245777; cv=none; b=A9ssK8PpNAR3BAPkGIWQdmSkhTO2iVs0k7foEBuIkBf2kzIxume1sOyK/LkaEAOGGVnvQXfBPZNPj0kF8B2q9Zi4CAmWkBO/2NcS5oADfonVeN1T2meneI6g/DKDkkyL5+JuhbISfVcjhnX2m6Z39NR4BXaaJwUttYdynP9HmLM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763245777; c=relaxed/simple; bh=TmBZ71KtSH+xixCjuLARnjJtxSt1AmGwf28/TRF3fLY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=USjuh8nizfPT5xmqz/3z00XrVUEM+e2BLyGiYmH0WjZ7LB469RR9E+9dxHIKsnQs/1KTsXc7FCerUlOtllcAkP9OmhL/qaV/T2yz3Acf7oFF4yoaryIGPkTN6O0pK2+PH6pcWn9/7D49a9JQQeCdrTmfqQAHzJu3iCcA91hlnoc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b=PwsSYdSw reason="signature verification failed"; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b="PwsSYdSw" Received: from [172.27.2.41] (c-76-133-66-138.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.133.66.138]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.18.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 5AFMT7dN3213645 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 15 Nov 2025 14:29:10 -0800 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 5AFMT7dN3213645 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2025102301; t=1763245758; bh=o6FcQy8d4be39w/3gkzCf13G91XwD08Zmq/c7rYZIi4=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=PwsSYdSwMDIyhv/kdJM/Qq49dgUmKIS329fItwIcIYDiiJE7Ud2NKtr7RurBRoQHU VjxtjEysbgA8oyOvdYXJ2y+aIHlKjeN9r8RjP1cE2ipDX+xt6lOuS+Cj7ylxu87KJ1 Ceta8he5Q/qYKvH2fZ3tmZYgvCsjfi/sUxSv0uEBQxg9YOEeEUQfGts0RVbj2q1aJN leRPjxCgH7AH75E6LX1gfgXPg1IN0q6vg/VoPGsuA2K9SMqxR60nf/CtA8xvbQIFNk f/t+C9kjJoOyb/Z8bzn9MnYt75Y5O9Kf8hcQV7MmAvN2A9jeWlrZusyxf2Dlmk13ld LBh/awmbkte3w== Message-ID: Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2025 14:29:06 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: RFC: Serial port DTR/RTS - O_ To: Ned Ulbricht , "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Greg KH , "Theodore Ts'o" , Maarten Brock , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-api@vger.kernel.org" , LKML References: <20251110201933.GH2988753@mit.edu> <0F8021E8-F288-4669-8195-9948844E36FD@zytor.com> <20251111035143.GJ2988753@mit.edu> <2025111214-doily-anyway-b24b@gregkh> <6DBB5931-ACD4-4174-9FCE-96C45FFC4603@zytor.com> <2025111241-domestic-moonstone-f75f@gregkh> <2025111227-equipment-magnetism-1443@gregkh> <14b1bc5c-83ac-431f-a53b-14872024b969@zytor.com> <6c26eea2-6f90-f48a-9488-e7480f086c70@netscape.net> Content-Language: en-US, sv-SE From: "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: <6c26eea2-6f90-f48a-9488-e7480f086c70@netscape.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2025-11-15 13:29, Ned Ulbricht wrote: > On 11/14/25 10:53, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On November 14, 2025 10:49:09 AM PST, "Maciej W. Rozycki" >> wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2025, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> >>>>> I think this is going to be the most difficult.  I don't remember why I >>>>> rejected the old submission, but maybe it would have modified the >>>>> existing behaviour?  A new open flag "O_DO_NOT_TOUCH_ANYTHING" might be >>>>> the simplest? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Okay, to I'm going to toss out a couple suggestions for naming: >>>> >>>>     O_(PRE|FOR|N|NO)?(INIT|CONFIG|START)(DEV|HW|IO)? >>>>     O_(NO?RESET|PREPARE)(DEV|HW|IO)? >>>>     O_NO?TOUCH >>>>     O_NYET ("not yet") >>>>      >>>> I think my personal preference at the moment is either O_NYET or O_PRECONFIG >>>> or O_NYET; although it is perhaps a bit more "use case centric" than "what >>>> actual effect it has" I think it might be clearer.  A -DEV, -HW or -IO suffix >>>> would seem to needlessly preclude it being used for future similar use cases >>>> for files that are not device nodes. >>> >>> Hmm, I'm inconvinced about any of these. >>> >>> How about O_FDONLY, to reflect that you are after a file descriptor only >>> [snip] > > Hi all, > > Resurrecting a (private email) discussion from a few years back now, my > personal preferences are: > (1) O_KEEP > (2) O_TTY_KEEP > (3) O_TTY_NOINIT. > > (Of course, naming an open() flag has got to be a paradigmatic > invitation for bike-shedding...) > > It's worth pointing out, though, that even though O_TTY_INIT doesn't > generally appear in linux headers, that particular flag is documented in > POSIX to have at least incompatible --perhaps even strictly opposite-- > behavior compared with this new proposed flag. > I dislike O_TTY_* because restricts it to the TTY use case. -hpa