From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 31559 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2022 11:41:32 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 9 Mar 2022 11:41:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 9275 invoked by uid 550); 9 Mar 2022 11:41:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 9236 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2022 11:41:28 -0000 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 06:41:15 -0500 From: Rich Felker To: Dominique MARTINET Cc: Ismael Luceno , musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20220309114115.GT7074@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20220123155955.16484-1-ismael@iodev.co.uk> <20220123155955.16484-3-ismael@iodev.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH v3 2/2] nftw: implement FTW_ACTIONRETVAL (GNU extension) On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 01:37:53PM +0900, Dominique MARTINET wrote: > Sorry for the delay, I was waiting for some "official" feedback and > forgot about the patch as none came. > > Rich (or others), is there anything we can do to convince you the > feature would be interesting? > I had sent you recap from debian codesearch back in April last year: > https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2021/04/12/10 > but didn't hear any reply. > > It'd be great to just hear a final "no unless it gets more widely used" > so I could give up and work on converting bpftools to not depend on > it -- it's just frustrating due to the lack of reply, and while adding > FTW_ACTIONRETVAL to musl is easy converting a user to something else is > not so straightforward so I was putting it off... > > (Conversely, if there is interest please say so as well -- my patch had > a couple of feedbacks I would be happy to address, but I just never sent > a v2 because it looked like it wouldn't be accepted anyway from your > (lack of) reaction. I don't care if my version of this one gets in > ultimately, and can help either way.) I don't recall whether my question original about meeting criteria for inclusion/exclusion was really addressed. I'll look back through the mails and if so then yes this is probably waiting on feedback from me. Rich