unistd: allow linkat to take multiple path types
#2582
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
This is technically a breaking change, even though most users' code will compile just fine. But it needs a changelog entry, and ideally a test that wouldn't have passed without this patch. |
hdonnay
force-pushed
the
hack/multi-path
branch
from
16e801d to
48c7b7d
Compare
asomers
requested changes
Jan 14, 2025
Other places in the crate take independent types in use cases like this, so bring `linkat` into line with them. Signed-off-by: Hank Donnay <[email protected]>
hdonnay
force-pushed
the
hack/multi-path
branch
from
48c7b7d to
b374fb9
Compare
asomers
approved these changes
Jan 14, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What does this PR do
Add a second type parameter to
linkatto allow the two paths to have different backing types.Checklist:
CONTRIBUTING.mdI'm unsure if this warrants additional tests, or if it qualifies as an API change. (I guess it technically is, but it doesn't change the usage in any way.)
LMK if I need to add either, or if there are other instances of this (unintentional(?) type parameter re-use) that I can clean up.