Hi On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/03/2017 09:01 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> >> [CC += David Herrmann] >> >> Hi Florian, >> >> On 3 November 2017 at 20:22, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> memfd_create(2) mentions a <sys/memfd.h>. Is this a typo for >>> <linux/memfd.h>? >> >> >> Offhand, I do not know. This header file was listed in the original >> draft of the page that I received from David Herrmann. (I did much >> reworking of the page, but overlooked this detail.) Perhaps it was a >> typo, or perhaps it was David's estimation that there would eventually >> be such a glibc header. >> >>> I want to implement the system call wrapper, but we're probably going to >>> put >>> it into <sys/mman.h> and have it include <linux/memfd.h> for _GNU_SOURCE. >> >> >> I'm agnostic about it. Maybe David will have some thoughts. > > > Thanks. > > My <sys/mman.h> approach is probably not such a great idea because we can't > include <linux/memfd.h> because the kernel headers may not have it. So if > we put memfd_create into <sys/mman.h>, then we'd have to duplicate the > constants. In contrast, a new header could indeed include <linux/memfd.h>. Yeah, the sys/memfd.h reference is stale. I don't remember whether it is just a typo or whether I intended to refer to my glibc-patch back then. Regardless, the file never existed. Thanks David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
