On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 07:54:25AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:25:44PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > Hi, > > > > [I'm resending this to linux-api instead of linux-kernel on the advice > > of Joseph Myers on libc-alpha. Please see the link to the libc-alpha > > thread at the bottom of this message for discussion that has already > > taken place.] > > As told you earlier on linux-kernel just send a patch with your semantics Apologies, I did not see the reply, and I'm still looking for it. I should have put the request to CC me more prominently in the email... > to lkml. We're not going to reserve a value for a namespace that is > reserved for the kernel to implement something that should better > be done in kernel space. Did you mean "that should better be done in user space"? Whether O_SEARCH and O_EXEC are provided fully natively by the kernel or handled by userspace, either way a reserved value in the open flags must be set aside. Otherwise any value used by the userspace implementation would risk conflicting with future kernel features using the same bit(s). I fully understand that the kernel folks may not want to put O_SEARCH and O_EXEC specific semantics in the kernel when O_PATH can, with some trivial additional code in userspace, provide what's needed already. This is why, at this time, I'm requesting a reserved value and not trying to push code into the kernel. Rich -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
