Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:32:53AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > > > Can you write a test (or set of) for fstests that exercises this new > > > functionality? I'm not worried about performance, just > > > correctness.... > > > > On the subject of testing, I added support to trinity (attached, > > untested). That did raise one question. Do we expect applications to > > #include <linux/fs.h> to get the RWF_NONBLOCK definition? > > Trinity will at least need an addition to include/compat.h for > older headers that won't have the definition. Looks ok otherwise. OK, I'll add that. > Also, I usually sit on stuff like this until the syscall numbers are > in Linus tree. This is 3.19 stuff I presume ? > istr akpm picked up execveat recently, so if that goes in first, we'll > need to respin this anyway.. Sure. I just wanted to test with trinity *before* it makes it into the kernel. Crazy, I know. ;-) Cheers, Jeff -- 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
