Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] compat/mingw: support POSIX semantics for atomic renames

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 10:36:55PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> >> Ah, I was confused twice here. First, the documentation that you cite[*]
> >> mentions FILE_RENAME_POSIX_SEMANTICS, but the name does not exist at
> >> all. There does exist FILE_RENAME_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS. The
> >> documentation is just wrong. And in my earlier comment I copied the
> >> inexistent flag name.
> >>
> >> But I meant to cite this flag: FILE_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS (no "RENAME").
> >> It exists and is for CreateFileW().
> >>
> >> Perhaps you also meant cite the latter one as the flag that "is not for
> >> use with `SetFileInformationByHandle()`"?
> >>
> >> At any rate, the paragraph as written isn't correct.
> >
> > I think I'm missing something. That's what the paragraph says:
> >
> >     Careful readers might have noticed that [1] does not mention the above
> >     flag, but instead mentions `FILE_RENAME_POSIX_SEMANTICS`. This flag is
> >     not for use with `SetFileInformationByHandle()` though, which is what we
> >     use. And while the `FILE_RENAME_FLAG_POSIX_SEMANTICS` flag exists, it is
> >     not documented on [2] or anywhere else as far as I can tell.
> >
> > And I'd claim it is correct.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > [1]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/ntifs/ns-ntifs-_file_rename_information
> > [2]: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/ddi/fltkernel/nf-fltkernel-fltsetinformationfile
>
> OK, then let's leave the text as it is.

Thanks, both, for vetting it carefully.

Thanks,
Taylor




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux