On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:02:12PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K. V wrote: > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 01:27:06 +1000, Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > This (and all the others) is really ugly overloading of syscall > > arguments IMO, and the changelog is seriously lacking for such > > changes. > > Initially we had freadlink > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/12/222 > > We updated the patches to use the existing readlinkat interface because > utimensat(2) already exposed a similar interface. So it should be ok to > expect that other *at call behaved in a similar way ? I'm not sure whether it's OK or not. Probably is, it is a slight API change though, that should at least be noted in the changelog. > > This also changes the the syscall API of existing calls; from reading > > the path at NULL, to switching to a completely different syscall. > > Perhaps you're assuming nobody relies on SIGSEGV / mmapped NULL address > > there, but even then you surely need to document the changed semantics > > somewhere (and document the new syscall semantics properly). > > > Yes this would need a documentation update. But i guess since we already > have utimensat(2) behaving similarly we are ok to extent readlinkat, > linkat and faccessat on similar lines ? At least there is precedent. Pretty ugly though :( Well if others (Christoph and Al, primarily) think it's OK then fine by me. But please put comments or changelog for API changes such that a man page writer could easily update it. -- 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
