On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:07:55AM +0200, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > + * Note: __O_SYNC must never be used directly. > > Doesn't it make sense that applications that actually know what they are > doing may want to start using __O_SYNC directly at some point in the > future? It makes sense to code the kernel to handle both of these flags > appropriately (i.e. if __O_SYNC is set, but O_DSYNC is not then treat > this as the proper "O_SYNC"). What would be the benefit of that? Setting two bits vs one in a data structure is not going to make any difference, and the way it's done in this patch is actually much easier to implement in the kernel. > > Index: linux-2.6/arch/alpha/include/asm/fcntl.h > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/alpha/include/asm/fcntl.h 2009-09-10 16:31:47.720004025 -0300 > > +++ linux-2.6/arch/alpha/include/asm/fcntl.h 2009-09-10 16:33:55.087294444 -0300 > > #define O_CLOEXEC 010000000 /* set close_on_exec */ > > +#define __O_SYNC 010000000 > > These two flags have the same value... Thanks, corrected. -- 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
