Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Rename CAP_EPOLLWAKEUP to CAL_BLOCK_SUSPEND | Date | Tue, 17 Jul 2012 21:05:21 +0200 |
| |
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) (mtk.manpages@gmail.com): > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote: > > > Quoting Michael Kerrisk (mtk.manpages@gmail.com): > > >> 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 <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> > > > > > > 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.
I'm not so sure of that, but then I think it will be less painful to do it now rather than later.
> I'm sure there are, but I'm not sure what we've promised them.
I can't recall making any promises to anyone in that respect, but then people have had quite enough time to get used to the existing name already.
> Like I say if at all possible I do prefer not to keep CAP_EPOLLWAKEUP.
I will push the Michael's patch to Linus for v3.5, if it's not too late, but I'm not pleased by the timing of this, to put it lightly.
Thanks, Rafael
| |