* 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, Florian
