* Miklos Szeredi: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:22 AM, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote: >> * Andreas Dilger: >> >>>> So what's the point exactly? >>> >>> Ah, I see your point... STATX_ALL seems to be mostly useful for the kernel >>> to mask off flags that it doesn't currently understand. It doesn't make >>> much sense for applications to specify STATX_ALL, since they don't have any >>> way to know what each flag means unless they are hard-coded to check each of >>> the STATX_* flags individually. They should build up a mask of STATX_* >>> flags >>> based on what they care about (e.g. "find" should only request attributes >>> based on the command-line options given). >> >> Could you remove it from the UAPI header? I didn't want to put it >> into the glibc header, but was overruled. > > To summarize Linus' rule of backward incompatibility: you can do it as > long as nobody notices. So yeah, we could try removing STATX_ALL from > the uapi header, but we'd have to put it back in, once somebody > complains.
I don't recall a rule about backwards-incompatible API changes. This wouldn't impact ABI at all.
