This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v5] Add LFS support for fts functions [BZ #11460]
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux dot org>, Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:31:05 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] Add LFS support for fts functions [BZ #11460]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1445002620-4017-1-git-send-email-mjw at redhat dot com> <1445513672-21431-1-git-send-email-mjw at redhat dot com> <1446062171 dot 27435 dot 4 dot camel at bordewijk dot wildebeest dot org> <1446457827 dot 3141 dot 6 dot camel at bordewijk dot wildebeest dot org>
On 11/02/2015 10:50 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-10-28 at 20:56 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> On Thu, 2015-10-22 at 13:34 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>> I believe I dealt with all the review comments. This last version
>>> is just to deal with the changes caused by rebasing to current master.
>>> OK to commit?
>>
>> Ping. I rebased and retested again. This time luckily the only conflicts
>> were in the NEWS file, so I won't post a new version. I still would like
>> to commit it though. OK?
>
> I cannot tell whether not getting any more replies to this patch means
> we have consensus that this is a good patch and I can commit it now. Or
> that it simply means nobody has time to go over it one last time. Please
> let me know which one it is.
I suppose it's ready to commit. I was confused by this bit:
+#define fts64_open __rename_fts64_open
+#define fts64_close __rename_fts64_close
+#define fts64_read __rename_fts64_read
+#define fts64_set __rename_fts64_set
+#define fts64_children __rename_fts64_children
But I think it's standard practice to avoid impact from the headers in
such cases (other such uses are uncommented as well).
Florian