From nobody Tue Oct 21 00:02:28 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4crCD300Rlz6DN5p for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 00:02:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4crCD15jbQz3tpB for ; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 00:02:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 2001:470:d5e7:1::1 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of kostikbel@gmail.com) smtp.mailfrom=kostikbel@gmail.com Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by kib.kiev.ua (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 59L02SXk004495; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 03:02:31 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua 59L02SXk004495 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.18.1/8.18.1/Submit) id 59L02SPO004494; Tue, 21 Oct 2025 03:02:28 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2025 03:02:28 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Rick Macklem Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT Subject: Re: RFC: _PC_HAS_HIDDENSYSTEM rename Message-ID: References: List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on tom.home X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.71 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.994]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.72)[-0.719]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[gmail.com : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6939, ipnet:2001:470::/32, country:US]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[gmail.com]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-current@freebsd.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4crCD15jbQz3tpB 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.