On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > * Miklos Szeredi: > >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:22 AM, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: >>> * Andreas Dilger: >>> >>>>> So what's the point exactly? >>>> >>>> Ah, I see your point... STATX_ALL seems to be mostly useful for the kernel >>>> to mask off flags that it doesn't currently understand. It doesn't make >>>> much sense for applications to specify STATX_ALL, since they don't have any >>>> way to know what each flag means unless they are hard-coded to check each >>>> of >>>> the STATX_* flags individually. They should build up a mask of STATX_* >>>> flags >>>> based on what they care about (e.g. "find" should only request attributes >>>> based on the command-line options given). >>> >>> Could you remove it from the UAPI header? I didn't want to put it >>> into the glibc header, but was overruled. >> >> To summarize Linus' rule of backward incompatibility: you can do it as >> long as nobody notices. So yeah, we could try removing STATX_ALL from >> the uapi header, but we'd have to put it back in, once somebody >> complains. > > I don't recall a rule about backwards-incompatible API changes. This > wouldn't impact ABI at all.
Right, API rules maybe are softer. I'll do some patches... Thanks, Miklos
