On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:29 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) >> <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 13 August 2015 at 19:38, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 2:32 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Signed-off-by: David Drysdale <drysdale@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> What's the behavior wrt fcntl(F_GETFL, etc)? >>> >>> I would presume that O_BENEATH is one of the so-called "file creation >>> flags". See this paragraph of the DESCRIPTION: >>> >>> In addition, zero or more file creation flags and file status >>> flags can be bitwise-or'd in flags. The file creation flags are >>> O_CLOEXEC, O_CREAT, O_DIRECTORY, O_EXCL, O_NOCTTY, O_NOFOLLOW, >>> O_TMPFILE, O_TRUNC, and O_TTY_INIT. The file status flags are >>> all of the remaining flags listed below. The distinction between >>> these two groups of flags is that the file status flags can be >>> retrieved and (in some cases) modified; see fcntl(2) for details. >>> >>> David, presuming this is correct (I can't see how O_BENEATH could be a >>> "file *status* flag"), your patch should also add O_BENEATH to the >>> list in that paragraph. >> >> Yeah, O_BENEATH makes sense as a file creation flag; I'll add it >> to that list -- thanks for spotting. > > Should there be a test that you can't clear O_BENEATH with F_SETFL? > > --Andy I'll add a test that fcntl(F_SETFL) silently ignores the file creation flags, including O_BENEATH. -- 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
