Message-ID: <405E900C.2070502@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 23:04:44 -0800
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040321
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Drop O_LARGEFILE from F_GETFL for POSIX compliance
References: <20040322051318.597ad1f9.ak@suse.de>	<20040321213944.2fdb980d.akpm@osdl.org> <20040322071425.3cd57aca.ak@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20040322071425.3cd57aca.ak@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 887
Lines: 23

Andi Kleen wrote:

> No, because O_LARGEFILE is not part of POSIX :-) (they use open64 etc.)

What are you talking about?  Neither O_LARGEFILE nor open64 is in POSIX.
 But both are in the LFS extensions.

This whole change seems dubious at best.  Who has argued that
O_LARGEFILE mustn't be returned?  I do not agree at all.  If the test
suite checks this the author must defend the position.

I suggest to not make any changes.  It is perfectly OK to define new O_
flags and the open() specification does not require that none of them
must set implicitly.


-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/