On Monday 14 March 2011 22:11:19 Ted Ts'o wrote:
> It wouldn't hurt to have a "flags" field which we could expand later
> --- but that can lead to portability headaches for userspace programs
> that don't know whether a particular kernel is going to support a
> particular flag or not. So it's certainly not a panacea.
I think adding an unused flags argument can't hurt.
We could be fancy and ignore half the bits but bail out on the other
half with -EINVAL. That would make it possible to add both compatible
(default being full sync on old kernels) and incompatible (getting
rejected on old kernels) flags.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
