Re: [PATCH v7] getrandom system call wrapper [BZ #17252]

[Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 09:16 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 11/18/2016 05:04 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-11-18 at 16:13 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> On 11/18/2016 03:21 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >>
> >>> As discussed in the thread, there are different opinions about what the
> >>> default should be.  There are reasonable arguments for both options.  In
> >>> such a case, it seems better to make the choice explicit, simply from an
> >>> ease-of-use and interface design perspective.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, this is not the approach that POSIX has chosen.  But
> >> there is precedent for doing our own thing in this area: the "c" flag
> >> for fopen.  We cannot use the existing flags argument in getrandom for
> >> this purpose because its layout is controlled by the kernel.
> >
> > It seems a separate argument would be better than using up space in the
> > existing flags.  Cancellation is something we add, so we should add to
> > the underlying interface too, instead of messing with it.
> 
> Is this separate argument your personal preference, or are you just 
> trying to find common ground and reconcile different positions?

It's my personal preference.  Which is partially motivated by trying to
find common ground between the different use cases (and not finding
obvious common group, so therefore make the choice explicit).