* Jeff Layton: > Even better would be to declare the new flag in some openat2-only flag > space, so there's no confusion about it being supported by legacy open > calls. Isn't that desirable anyway because otherwise fcntl with F_GETFL will give really confusing results? > If glibc wants to implement an open -> openat2 wrapper in userland > later, it can set that flag in the wrapper implicitly to emulate the old > behavior. I see us rather doing the opposite, i.e. implement openat2 with non-exotic flags using openat. But we've bitten by this in the past, so maybe that's not such a great idea. It's tempting to make the same mistake again for every new system call. Thanks, Florian
