On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 9:28 AM Rick Macklem <rmack...@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > > 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 for > 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 will > become aware of that. > > What do others think w.r.t. which is the better approach? rick
Better to return EINVAL. That way a program written for FreeBSD 14 which uses a FreeBSD 14-specific flag will fail when run on FreeBSD 13, which lacks that flag. -Alan _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
