Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 17:46:33 +0100 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: chflags(2)'s flags argument. Message-ID: <20130317164632.GI1364@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <20130317162533.GT3794@kib.kiev.ua> References: <20130317003559.GA1364@garage.freebsd.pl> <20130317064123.GM3794@kib.kiev.ua> <20130317111112.GC1364@garage.freebsd.pl> <20130317155743.GR3794@kib.kiev.ua> <20130317162021.GG1364@garage.freebsd.pl> <20130317162533.GT3794@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--ev7mvGV+3JQuI2Eo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 06:25:33PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:20:22PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 05:57:43PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:11:12PM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > > > > I know it can break API in some rare cases like in chflags(1), but = it > > > > results in compilation error (at least with the compilation flags we > > > > use), so can be easly spotted and fixed, hopefully: > > > >=20 > > > > /usr/home/pjd/p4/capkern/bin/chflags/chflags.c: In function 'main': > > > > /usr/home/pjd/p4/capkern/bin/chflags/chflags.c:120: warning: assign= ment from incompatible pointer type > > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > Project aims to maintain better compatibility then to claim that > > > the changes could be 'spotted'. > >=20 > > Should I read this as you being against the proposed change? >=20 > No, I do not object. But, did you considered changing the syscall argument > to unsigned long instead ? Well, the main reason behind this change is to make all chflags(2) syscalls consistent. I didn't consider changing syscall argument to unsigned long, but then I'd need to update lchflags(2) to take unsigned long to make it consistent with others, which has the exact same implications. Now that I think about this, changing lchflags(2) argument to unsigned long might be better option, because: - It would make all those syscalls consistent with strtofflags(3) and fflagstostr(3). - It would decrease the risk of possible breakage, as lchflags(2) is rarely used. --=20 Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://tupytaj.pl --ev7mvGV+3JQuI2Eo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlFF82gACgkQForvXbEpPzRvxwCfXDczTJTta1E81k0//4aONOyq CNcAoM+o5+jscnGRgejEWfzmLbTjxU2z =X6V/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ev7mvGV+3JQuI2Eo--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130317164632.GI1364>