From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-72648-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 125683 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2016 08:44:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 125667 invoked by uid 89); 18 Aug 2016 08:44:19 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:2050, deprecate
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [glibc PATCH] fcntl: put F_OFD_* constants under #ifdef
 __USE_FILE_OFFSET64
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>, libc-alpha@sourceware.org
References: <1471445251-2450-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com>
 <024779d0-2800-8e43-b65c-180eca70cc8b@redhat.com>
 <1471455596.3196.36.camel@redhat.com>
 <a2cb8cef-26d6-fdb4-9071-e1ed8502d7ae@redhat.com>
 <1471458074.3196.67.camel@redhat.com>
 <9a96f830-ad56-91fe-1293-1d38d9195e49@redhat.com>
 <1471461603.3196.105.camel@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>,
        Yuriy Kolerov <Yuriy.Kolerov@synopsys.com>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <560d7245-ab98-2050-d99a-f3ed6d949ea2@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:44:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1471461603.3196.105.camel@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg00566.txt.bz2

On 08/17/2016 09:20 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:

> It is, but it's preferable to unexpected behavior at runtime. I think
> it's entirely reasonable to require large file offsets in order to use
> OFD locks, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if there are use
> cases that you know of that this will break.

I have thought about it some more and I agree that removing the 
definitions for !64-bit is a viable course of action.

We should deprecate F_SETLK64 and struct lock64, too, and document that 
you should use _FILE_OFFSET_BITS == 64 if you need such locks.  That, 
and make fcntl type-safe (for both C and C++ with sufficiently recent GCC).

Florian