Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 15:27:56 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: "freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@FreeBSD.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org>, "kib@freebsd.org" <kib@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [Differential] D20584: add a linux compatible copy_file_range(2) syscall Message-ID: <YTXPR01MB02854D6BDAF9EB943DEC3F1EDDF50@YTXPR01MB0285.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <f9a25b0afb51a92b4fd28f57a18b0d73@localhost.localdomain> References: <differential-rev-PHID-DREV-ki3nyojxtg6yf3c3i7o3-req@reviews.freebsd.org>, <f9a25b0afb51a92b4fd28f57a18b0d73@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
jilles wrote in copy_file_range.2:99 > The Linux man page (from http://man7.org/linux/man->pages/man2/copy_file_= range.2.html ) says that a non-zero flags argument will cause >the call to = return an [EINVAL] error. I think that is better than ignoring the argument= >completely since it allows adding flags more safely (since there will not= be existing >applications that pass in, for example, uninitialized data as= flags). The fun part is that the Linux folks are already discussing adding flags. I don't know if they are already in Linux-next (or whatever they call their= next release), but it sounded like they were headed that way. As such, I thought ignoring "flags" would be easier than returning EINVAL f= or code that works on Linux. However, I can see the counter argument, which is "returning EINVAL will indicate that the Linux flag isn't used on FreeBSD", so that developers wil= l become aware of that. What do others think w.r.t. which is the better approach? rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YTXPR01MB02854D6BDAF9EB943DEC3F1EDDF50>