On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:32:53AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > Can you write a test (or set of) for fstests that exercises this new
> > functionality? I'm not worried about performance, just
> > correctness....
>
> On the subject of testing, I added support to trinity (attached,
> untested). That did raise one question. Do we expect applications to
> #include <linux/fs.h> to get the RWF_NONBLOCK definition?
Trinity will at least need an addition to include/compat.h for
older headers that won't have the definition. Looks ok otherwise.
Also, I usually sit on stuff like this until the syscall numbers are
in Linus tree. This is 3.19 stuff I presume ?
istr akpm picked up execveat recently, so if that goes in first, we'll
need to respin this anyway..
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
