chflags(2)'s flags argument.

[Pawel Jakub Dawidek]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 07:42:05PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> I would say that API and ABI stability is more important then the
> consistency. I think we are in the agreement of changing the kernel
> interface for the chflags/fchflags to use long for flags.
> 
> For lchflags, my opinion is that the best would be not to change it.

ABI is out of question, we do preserve its stability. And as for API,
I think it is really low price to pay (if any) for consistency and would
also allow us to get rid of hacks like the one in chflags(1):

	int (*change_flags)(const char *, unsigned long);
	[...]
	/* XXX: Why don't chflags and lchflags have compatible prototypes? */
	if (hflag)
		change_flags = (int (*)(const char *, unsigned long))lchflags;
	else
		change_flags = chflags;

In common case when program just calls lchflags() directly it won't even
notice API change.

Maybe we could arrange ports build with lchflags(2) changed to take
unsigned long to see how destructive the change really is, because my
expectation is that not very.

-- 
Pawel Jakub Dawidek                       http://www.wheelsystems.com
FreeBSD committer                         http://www.FreeBSD.org
Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!                     http://tupytaj.pl
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20130317/8ed7f3c8/attachment.sig>