On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 01:28:20PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > That was my original thinking, but several people seemed to think that > we should just go ahead and support it. TBH, I don't much care either > way, but we either need to support it properly, or ensure that trying > to use OFD locks in a non-LFS program fails to compile. Yes, that's what glibc folks should do for now given that they still seem to refuse being draggred into the present. > The only real concern I have here is whether limiting this to LFS > enabled programs might make it tougher to get this into POSIX. Would > the POSIX standards folks object to having an interface like this that > doesn't support non-LFS cases? I guess if that ever happens though, > then we can just widen the support at that point. LFS is perfectly Posix compliant (as is non-LFS). It's really just a glibc (aka Linux) special to still support non-LFS modes. 4.4BSD and decendants have made the switch to 64-bit off_t in 1994 and haven't supported a non-LFS since. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
