On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Michael Kerrisk ([email protected]): >> Rafael, >> >> As discussed in >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1249726/focus=1288990, >> the capability introduced in 4d7e30d98939a0340022ccd49325a3d70f7e0238 >> to govern EPOLLWAKEUP seems misnamed: this capability is about governing >> the ability to suspend the system, not using a particular API flag >> (EPOLLWAKEUP). We should make the name of the capability more general >> to encourage reuse in related cases. (Whether or not this capability >> should also be used to govern the use of /sys/power/wake_lock is a >> question that needs to be separately resolved.) >> >> This patch renames the capability to CAP_BLOCK_SUSPEND. In order to ensure >> that the old capability name doesn't make it out into the wild, could you >> please apply and push up the tree to ensure that it is incorporated >> for the 3.5 release. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Michael >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Kerrisk <[email protected]> > > I definately like that name better, thanks. Don't know if renaming it > without an alias could cause trouble for some bleeding edge userspaces? > Would it be worth keeping the > > #define CAP_EPOLLWAKEUP 36 > > line? If this is deemed early enough I do prefer not to complicate with > a duplicate name.
Maybe I'm too ignorant. Are there userspaces that bleed with the -rc series? I'd have thought this renaming would be a fairly safe change at this point. > Acked-by: Serge Hallyn <[email protected]> Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
