From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 29 00:00:43 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E692106567E; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 344208FC15; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (c-67-180-24-15.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.24.15]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1T00V8P004509 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:00:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4F4D6AA4.9040208@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:00:36 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US; rv:1.9.2.27) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/3.1.19 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mikolaj Golub References: <201202261425.q1QEPm9g069102@svn.freebsd.org> <20120227082811.GC1363@garage.freebsd.pl> <864nucd5jc.fsf@in138.ua3> <20120227092951.GB55074@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4F4C7571.7010407@freebsd.org> <86zkc3bell.fsf@in138.ua3> In-Reply-To: <86zkc3bell.fsf@in138.ua3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , Konstantin Belousov Subject: Re: svn commit: r232181 - in head/sys: kern sys X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 00:00:43 -0000 On 2/27/12 11:29 PM, Mikolaj Golub wrote: > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:34:25 -0800 Julian Elischer wrote: > > JE> I don't think this belongs in the kernel by default. It's not exactl a > JE> call for backout but It's teh next thing short of that. a call for "do > JE> you REALLY think we need this particular specific case catered for?" > > The main goal of the patch was to provide ability to get another process > umask. It looks like usefulness of this is not questioned here. well that's exactly what I AM questioning.. how often will this be used? one person using this once in all of history isn't a real requirement for inclusion. It seems to me that someone is more likely to figure out a sneaky way to use this in a bad way than to want to use it in the way you expect.