"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Eric, > > The code proposed in this patch series is pretty small. Is there any > chance we could make the 4.10 merge window, if the changes seem > acceptable to you? I see why you are asking but I am not comfortable with aiming for the merge window that is on-going and could close at any moment. I have seen recenly too many patches that should work fine have some odd minor issue. Like an extra _ in a label used in an ifdef that resulted in memory stomps. Linus might be more brave but i would rather wait until the next merge window, so I don't need to worry about spoiling anyone's holidays with a typo someone over looked. At first glance these patches seem reasonable. I don't see any problem with the ioctls you have added. That said I have a question. Should we provide a more direct way to find the answer to your question? Something like the access system call? I think a more direct answer would be more maintainable in the long run as it does not bind tools to specific implementation details in the future. Which could allow us to account for LSM policies and the like. Eric -- 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
