Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 03:02:28 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Rick Macklem <rick.macklem@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: _PC_HAS_HIDDENSYSTEM rename Message-ID: <aPbNlLfjhrOr1QKF@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <CAM5tNy7y7RUXjJV1degDTrnG6dOwkkd%2Ba_jOU2ojaFzpFh6Fzg@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 04:20:21PM -0700, Rick Macklem wrote: > Hi > > There are three flags UF_HIDDEN, UF_SYSTEM and UF_ARCHIVE > defined in sys/stat.h (their origin is in MS-DOS). If a file system implements > any of these flags, they implement all three of them, afaik. > > Commit afd5bc6309 (in main) defined _PC_HAS_HIDDENSYSTEM > to allow pathconf to indicate if a file system supports the first two of > these. > I had ignored the third, since it is listed as "deprecated" in RFC-8881. > It now turns out that the Windows NFSv4.1 client folk want support > for UF_ARCHIVE and consider that it should not be deprecated. > > I do not think adding a separate _PC_HAS_ARCHIVE pathconf > name is useful, since it is supported when _PC_HAS_HIDDENSYSTEM > is returned non-zero. > > However, the name _PC_HAS_HIDDENSYSTEM is misleading, > so what do others think I should do? > - Add an alias for _PC_HAS_HIDDENSYSTEM called something > like _PC_HAS_HIDSYSARCH or _PC_HAS_HIDDENSYSTEMARCHIVE? > (Since _PC_HAS_HIDDENSYSTEM is now in the OpenZFS code, it > needs to remain in unistd.h, at least for now.) > Or > - Just leave the name as is and document it correctly in pathconf(2)? IMO the 'just leave' action is good enough.help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aPbNlLfjhrOr1QKF>