From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:45475 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754827AbcHSBv1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2016 21:51:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 19:31:39 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Jeff Layton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, chrubis@suse.cz Subject: Re: [Linux PATCH] fcntl: add new F_OFD_*32 constants and handle them appropriately Message-ID: <20160818173139.GA1140@lst.de> References: <1471521804-4291-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> <20160818170508.GA897@lst.de> <1471541300.2504.23.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1471541300.2504.23.camel@redhat.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 01:28:20PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > That was my original thinking, but several people seemed to think that > we should just go ahead and support it. TBH, I don't much care either > way, but we either need to support it properly, or ensure that trying > to use OFD locks in a non-LFS program fails to compile. Yes, that's what glibc folks should do for now given that they still seem to refuse being draggred into the present. > The only real concern I have here is whether limiting this to LFS > enabled programs might make it tougher to get this into POSIX. Would > the POSIX standards folks object to having an interface like this that > doesn't support non-LFS cases? I guess if that ever happens though, > then we can just widen the support at that point. LFS is perfectly Posix compliant (as is non-LFS). It's really just a glibc (aka Linux) special to still support non-LFS modes. 4.4BSD and decendants have made the switch to 64-bit off_t in 1994 and haven't supported a non-LFS since.