Re: [patch] Rename CAP_EPOLLWAKEUP to CAL_BLOCK_SUSPEND

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>]

Quoting Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) (mtk.manpages@gmail.com):
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Kerrisk (mtk.manpages@gmail.com):
> >> Rafael,
> >>
> >> As discussed in
> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1249726/focus=1288990,
> >> the capability introduced in 4d7e30d98939a0340022ccd49325a3d70f7e0238
> >> to govern EPOLLWAKEUP seems misnamed: this capability is about governing
> >> the ability to suspend the system, not using a particular API flag
> >> (EPOLLWAKEUP). We should make the name of the capability more general
> >> to encourage reuse in related cases. (Whether or not this capability
> >> should also be used to govern the use of /sys/power/wake_lock is a
> >> question that needs to be separately resolved.)
> >>
> >> This patch renames the capability to CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND. In order to ensure
> >> that the old capability name doesn't make it out into the wild, could you
> >> please apply and push up the tree to ensure that it is incorporated
> >> for the 3.5 release.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
> >
> > I definately like that name better, thanks.  Don't know if renaming it
> > without an alias could cause trouble for some bleeding edge userspaces?
> > Would it be worth keeping the
> >
> > #define CAP_EPOLLWAKEUP      36
> >
> > line?  If this is deemed early enough I do prefer not to complicate with
> > a duplicate name.
> 
> Maybe I'm too ignorant. Are there userspaces that bleed with the -rc
> series? I'd have thought this renaming would be a fairly safe change
> at this point.

I'm sure there are, but I'm not sure what we've promised them.

Like I say if at all possible I do prefer not to keep CAP_EPOLLWAKEUP.

-serge