From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934077AbdC3RWD (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:22:03 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:59068 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933187AbdC3RWC (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:22:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 19:21:59 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Alexander Viro , Linux API , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , libc-alpha Subject: Re: RFC: reject unknown open flags Message-ID: <20170330172159.GA24139@lst.de> References: <20170330163327.23920-1-hch@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:08:10AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > What kind of new flag did you even have in mind that would have such > broken semantics that it would completely change the other flags? > Becuase now I'm starting to think that the whole series has an even > deeper bug: stupid new features that were badly thought out and not > even described. Failure atomic file updates, aka O_ATOMIC: https://lwn.net/Articles/573092/ Currently the way to probe for it is a new ioctl to check if atomicy is offered. This should work, but it's rather fragile..