Quoting Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) (mtk.manpa...@gmail.com): > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <se...@hallyn.com> wrote: > > Quoting Michael Kerrisk (mtk.manpa...@gmail.com): > >> Rafael, > >> > >> As discussed in > >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1249726/focus=1288990, > >> the capability introduced in 4d7e30d98939a0340022ccd49325a3d70f7e0238 > >> to govern EPOLLWAKEUP seems misnamed: this capability is about governing > >> the ability to suspend the system, not using a particular API flag > >> (EPOLLWAKEUP). We should make the name of the capability more general > >> to encourage reuse in related cases. (Whether or not this capability > >> should also be used to govern the use of /sys/power/wake_lock is a > >> question that needs to be separately resolved.) > >> > >> This patch renames the capability to CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND. In order to ensure > >> that the old capability name doesn't make it out into the wild, could you > >> please apply and push up the tree to ensure that it is incorporated > >> for the 3.5 release. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpa...@gmail.com> > > > > I definately like that name better, thanks. Don't know if renaming it > > without an alias could cause trouble for some bleeding edge userspaces? > > Would it be worth keeping the > > > > #define CAP_EPOLLWAKEUP 36 > > > > line? If this is deemed early enough I do prefer not to complicate with > > a duplicate name. > > Maybe I'm too ignorant. Are there userspaces that bleed with the -rc > series? I'd have thought this renaming would be a fairly safe change > at this point.
I'm sure there are, but I'm not sure what we've promised them. Like I say if at all possible I do prefer not to keep CAP_EPOLLWAKEUP. -serge -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
