This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: aio_fsync() a directory ?
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- To: Xavier Roche <roche+kml2 at exalead dot com>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Al Viro <viro at ZenIV dot linux dot org dot uk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch at lst dot de>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, linux-fsdevel at vger dot kernel dot org
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:05:29 -0400
- Subject: Re: aio_fsync() a directory ?
- References: <20130408212729 dot ED7592C085 at topped-with-meat dot com> <5163BA06 dot 30600 at exalead dot com> <20130411225058 dot 989CB2C07B at topped-with-meat dot com> <5167A305 dot 1010506 at exalead dot com> <5174FFBA dot 8030301 at exalead dot com> <20130424024857 dot GA27108 at lst dot de> <51776E22 dot 1050502 at exalead dot com> <20130424063326 dot GN4068 at ZenIV dot linux dot org dot uk> <20130424163459 dot 838832C07D at topped-with-meat dot com> <51780E4F dot 4060703 at exalead dot com>
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 06:54:39PM +0200, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 06:34 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> >Take this up with the POSIX committee. Complaining on implementors'
> >mailing lists won't have any effect on the future text of standards.
>
> Absolutely. I'd like to mention that the austin-group-l mailing-list
> is opened to anyone wishing to contribute (with proper technical
> arguments, of course), and AFAICS opened to remarks (this bug was
> opened following one of my remarks - so you may consider this as my
> fault :p)
I'm guilty of a similar mistake, with issue #663, and would appreciate
any supporting arguments against the ridiculous change in the standard
they want to make and pretend is just a clarification of historic
practice. The proposed change also renders glibc non-conforming so I
think it's on-topic.
Rich