From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ECFF7F3F for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:01:13 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:01:09 -0500 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] xfs: remove the unused XFS_ATTR_NONBLOCK flag Message-ID: <20131017200109.GI1935@sgi.com> References: <20131012075503.370510641@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131012075640.115410017@bombadil.infradead.org> <20131014045152.GG4446@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131014045152.GG4446@dastard> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Gents, On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 03:51:52PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:55:05AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > > Still unused after all this time, so removing it is fine by me. > > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner An xfs ioctl user who requests nonblocking behavior will no longer get it. This seems to constitute API breakage. How can we verify that this is unused since anyone can open with O_NONBLOCK? Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs