On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:37:09AM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote: > On 2014/02/10, 2:29 PM, "Al Viro" <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 08:16:52PM +0000, Dilger, Andreas wrote: > >> >>Instead of trying to find a non-conflicting O_LOV_DELAY_CREATE flag > >> >>or define a Lustre-specific flag that isn't of use to most/any other > >> >>filesystems, use (O_NOCTTY|FASYNC) as the new value. These flag > >> >>are not meaningful for newly-created regular files and should be > >> >>OK since O_LOV_DELAY_CREATE is only meaningful for new files. > > > >*shrug* > > > >I can live with that; it's a kludge, but it's less broken than that > >explicit constant - that one is a non-starter, since O_... flag > >values are arch-dependent. > > Greg, > could you please merge the original patch. We'd like to get this into > our pending release of the Lustre user tools and into the releases for > older kernels (which will support both the old and new flags until the > support for older kernels is removed). Can you please resend the original patch, without the "RFC" line in the subject, so I know to apply it now? thanks, greg k-h -- 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
