Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Right now "flags" doesn't do anything at all, and you should just pass in
> > > zero.
> >
> > In that case perhaps we should be enforcing flags==0 so that future
> > flags-using applications will reliably fail on old flags-not-understanding
> > kernels.
> >
> > But that won't work if we later define a bit in flags to mean "behave like
> > old kernels used to". So perhaps we should require that bits 0-15 of
> > `flags' be zero and not care about bits 16-31.
> >
> > IOW: it might be best to make `flags' just go away, and add new syscalls in
> > the future as appropriate.
>
> Not if flags == 0 maintains the same behaviour. The only flag I can
> think of right now is the 'move' or 'gift' flag, meaning that the caller
> wants to migrate pages from the pipe instead of copying them. I'd
> imagine we'd get that in way before 2.6.17 anyways, so I think we're
> fine.
OK.. Do you plan to make it reject unrecognised flags?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
