Re: [PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX_ALL

2018-10-18 Thread Andreas Dilger
On Oct 18, 2018, at 7:11 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Constants of the *_ALL type can be actively harmful due to the fact that > developers will usually fail to consider the possible effects of future > changes to the definition. > > Remove STATX_ALL from the uapi, while no damage has been done

Re: [PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX_ALL

2018-10-18 Thread Andreas Dilger
> On Oct 18, 2018, at 7:15 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Miklos Szeredi: > >> #define STATX__RESERVED 0x8000U /* Reserved for future >> struct statx expansion */ > > What about this? Isn't it similar to STATX_ALL in the sense that we > don't know yet what it will mean?

Re: [PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX_ALL

2018-10-18 Thread Florian Weimer
* Amir Goldstein: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:11 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> >> Constants of the *_ALL type can be actively harmful due to the fact that >> developers will usually fail to consider the possible effects of future >> changes to the definition. >> >> Remove STATX_ALL from the uapi, w

Re: [PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX_ALL

2018-10-18 Thread David Howells
Miklos Szeredi wrote: > Constants of the *_ALL type can be actively harmful due to the fact that > developers will usually fail to consider the possible effects of future > changes to the definition. > > Remove STATX_ALL from the uapi, while no damage has been done yet. You don't know that some

Re: [PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX_ALL

2018-10-18 Thread Amir Goldstein
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:11 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > Constants of the *_ALL type can be actively harmful due to the fact that > developers will usually fail to consider the possible effects of future > changes to the definition. > > Remove STATX_ALL from the uapi, while no damage has been don

Re: [PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX_ALL

2018-10-18 Thread Miklos Szeredi
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Miklos Szeredi: >> >>> #define STATX__RESERVED 0x8000U /* Reserved for >>> future struct statx expansion */ >> >> What about this? Isn't it similar to STATX

Re: [PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX_ALL

2018-10-18 Thread Miklos Szeredi
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:15 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Miklos Szeredi: > >> #define STATX__RESERVED 0x8000U /* Reserved for future >> struct statx expansion */ > > What about this? Isn't it similar to STATX_ALL in the sense that we > don't know yet what it will mean? K

Re: [PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX_ALL

2018-10-18 Thread Florian Weimer
* Miklos Szeredi: > #define STATX__RESERVED 0x8000U /* Reserved for future > struct statx expansion */ What about this? Isn't it similar to STATX_ALL in the sense that we don't know yet what it will mean?

[PATCH 2/3] uapi: get rid of STATX_ALL

2018-10-18 Thread Miklos Szeredi
Constants of the *_ALL type can be actively harmful due to the fact that developers will usually fail to consider the possible effects of future changes to the definition. Remove STATX_ALL from the uapi, while no damage has been done yet. We could keep something like this around in the kernel, bu