Hi, On 9/5/25 12:19 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Randy Dunlap: > >> On 9/4/25 11:49 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> * Amir Goldstein: >>> >>>> I find this end result a bit odd, but I don't want to suggest another variant >>>> I already proposed one in v2 review [1] that maybe you did not like. >>>> It's fine. >>>> I'll let Aleksa and Christian chime in to decide on if and how they want this >>>> comment to look or if we should just delete these definitions and be done with >>>> this episode. >>> >>> We should fix the definition in glibc to be identical token-wise to the >>> kernel's. >> >> That's probably a good suggestion... >> while I tried the reverse of that and Amir opposed. > > It's certainly odd that the kernel uses different token sequences for > defining AT_RENAME_* and RENAME_*. But it's probably too late to fix > that. > > Here's the glibc patch: > > [PATCH] libio: Define AT_RENAME_* with the same tokens as Linux > <https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/lhubjnpv03o.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u> Thanks! -- ~Randy
