On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Nicholas Krause <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On April 7, 2015 1:05:42 PM EDT, David Legault <[email protected]> > wrote: >>Hello, >> >>Now that we have O_TMPFILE and O_BENEATH added to the openat flags, >>there >>is no space left to add more flags since the flags variable is a 32 bit >>int. How does one resolve this issue and extend this? A new syscall >>with a >>64bit wide flags support? >> >>http://www.spinics.net/lists/fstests/msg01064.html >> >>Thanks >> >>David >> > That would be the easiest way to my knowledge. However with anything system > call related, test it out in every way you can think of as not to break user > space applications using this call already . I am curious through as to your > reasoning for changing this system call as generally this is only done only > with either a very good reason or when it is a must.
The reason is that I want to add a new flag and there is no room left to add it in the current setup since all flag values are used. And this issue will crop up for the kernel sooner or later for the next person that wants to add a flag to it. I couldn't find any discussion online of the "what do we do when we reach that point". That's what I was thinking but wasn't 100% sure which is why I am asking. It wouldn't be too difficult since I have full control over the kernel and libc in this env but I'd prefer doing it the same way that it would be done so that I could submit my extension to the kernel as a patch if required. > Hope this helps, > Nick >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Kernelnewbies mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
