> Op 01-04-2026 14:23 CEST schreef Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>: > > > On 2026-03-30, Jeff Layton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Looks sane to me. Can this be merged apart from the rest of the series? > > It doesn't seem like the transitive stuff is dependent on this. > > My only comment is that I would like this to be usable in open() as it > is one of the very few cases of an O_* flag that is actually backwards > compatible with all of the brokenness of open() and the systemd folks > would probably want to use it (they can't use openat2() yet).
OK. I'll just wait a bit on what Christian has to say about adding it to openat(), since he initially rejected that, before I write up the new patch. > > -- > Aleksa Sarai > https://www.cyphar.com/ Thanks, Jori.
