From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use ATTR_* values from fs.h in userspace facing structs Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:04:27 +0200 Message-ID: <1324145067.4496.44.camel@lappy> References: <1324134422-16642-1-git-send-email-levinsasha928@gmail.com> <20111217174725.GW2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ericvh@gmail.com, rminnich@sandia.gov, lucho@ionkov.net, davem@davemloft.net, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jvrao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Al Viro Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111217174725.GW2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 17:47 +0000, Al Viro wrote: > Look, that's the problem with exposing this stuff to protocol; you don't > get clear semantics and are you seriously asking for trouble on kernel > changes. Suppose tomorrow we get rid of e.g. ATTR_KILL_PRIV; what are you > guys going to do? Hope that no 9p server has behaviour dependent on that > flag being set or cleared? > > Don't turn the kernel internals into a part of ABI. And blind bulk remapping > of constants is exactly that... I went with Aneesh's suggestion and did something similar to something 9p already has done before. This is probably a good opportunity to open it up for discussion, since I currently have a block of code containing those ATTR_* defines copy-pasted from linux/fs.h in my userspace code, and thats obviously a serious wtf. -- Sasha.