Maybe potential incompatibility of file_info record

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Maybe potential incompatibility of file_info record

shunichi shinohara
Hi all,

After using OTP 21-rc2 some days, I encountered a situation
where rebar3/relx-generated release did not start.

The (maybe-indirect) cause is in erlware_commons and the issue
has been filed:
  ec_file:copy fails for not owned source file with OTP 21-rc2
  https://github.com/erlware/erlware_commons/issues/133

In the module, file_info is read and written (copied) after file:copy.
If source file is owned by root, non-root user can not write the file_info
to target's.

It seems that some fields are added to file_info record between 20 and 21-rc2,
might it be nice if it is stated in OTP release's README as potential
incompatibility?

Thanks,
Shino
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maybe potential incompatibility of file_info record

Björn Gustavsson-4
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]> wrote:
[...]
> It seems that some fields are added to file_info record between 20 and 21-rc2,

"Seems"?

No fields have been added for a very long time. The only
modifications done in recent releases are updates
to the types of the existing fields. The last such change
was made at the end of 2015.

/Bjorn

--
Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maybe potential incompatibility of file_info record

shunichi shinohara
I'm sorry I was wrong. Thanks for correct me, Bjorn.
I have to dig the root cause down ;)

Shino

2018-06-07 15:04 GMT+09:00 Björn Gustavsson <[hidden email]>:

> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [...]
>> It seems that some fields are added to file_info record between 20 and 21-rc2,
>
> "Seems"?
>
> No fields have been added for a very long time. The only
> modifications done in recent releases are updates
> to the types of the existing fields. The last such change
> was made at the end of 2015.
>
> /Bjorn
>
> --
> Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maybe potential incompatibility of file_info record

shunichi shinohara
I looked into the source code and I think the difference between 20
and 21.0-rc2 is identified.

# The subject of this thread is not suitable,
# but please let me report to not leave just a wrong information.

First, the difference between OTP 20.3.4 and 21.0-rc2 is as follows.
(on macOS, OTPs are installed from git by kerl)

Setup file a and b, a is owned by root user.
% rm -f a && rm -f b && sudo touch a && sudo chmod 755 a && touch b

Let's start OTP 21.0-rc2 and read file_info of a and write it to b,
it fails:
% ~/local/otp/OTP-21.0-rc2/bin/erl
Erlang/OTP 21 [RELEASE CANDIDATE 2] [erts-10.0] [source] [64-bit]
[smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10] [async-threads:1] [hipe] [sharing-preserving]

Eshell V10.0  (abort with ^G)
1> {ok, Fi} = file:read_file_info("a").
{ok,#file_info{size = 0,type = regular,access = read,
               atime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
               mtime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
               ctime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
               mode = 33261,links = 1,major_device = 16777220,
               minor_device = 0,inode = 17846256,uid = 0,gid = 20}}
2> file:write_file_info("b", Fi).
{error,eperm}

Then, start OTP 20.3.4 and replay the same step, it succeeds:
% ~/local/otp/OTP-20.3.4/bin/erl
Erlang/OTP 20 [erts-9.3] [source] [64-bit] [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10]
[async-threads:10] [hipe] [kernel-poll:false]

Eshell V9.3  (abort with ^G)
1> {ok, F} = file:read_file_info("a").
{ok,#file_info{size = 0,type = regular,access = read,
               atime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
               mtime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
               ctime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
               mode = 33261,links = 1,major_device = 16777220,
               minor_device = 0,inode = 17846256,uid = 0,gid = 20}}
2> file:write_file_info("b", F).
ok

The file_info records are the same (sorry again...), but the results differ.

Looking into unix_efile.c on maint-20 branch:
    https://github.com/erlang/otp/blob/maint-20/erts/emulator/drivers/unix/unix_efile.c#L572
it ignores eperm error and proceeds forward:
    if (chown(name, pInfo->uid, pInfo->gid) && errno != EPERM) {

I'm not sure the difference is judged as incompatibility or not,
it's nice if this note helps someone (including future me).

Thanks,
Shino

2018-06-07 15:07 GMT+09:00 Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]>:

> I'm sorry I was wrong. Thanks for correct me, Bjorn.
> I have to dig the root cause down ;)
>
> Shino
>
> 2018-06-07 15:04 GMT+09:00 Björn Gustavsson <[hidden email]>:
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> It seems that some fields are added to file_info record between 20 and 21-rc2,
>>
>> "Seems"?
>>
>> No fields have been added for a very long time. The only
>> modifications done in recent releases are updates
>> to the types of the existing fields. The last such change
>> was made at the end of 2015.
>>
>> /Bjorn
>>
>> --
>> Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maybe potential incompatibility of file_info record

Björn Gustavsson-4
Thanks for digging deeper.

The old efile_driver has been rewritten and
replaced with a NIF. I am not sure whether
this change is an oversight/bug or a deliberate
change. We will look into it before the release
of OTP 21 and either fix the bug or add a
note about the potential incompatibility.

/Björn



On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I looked into the source code and I think the difference between 20
> and 21.0-rc2 is identified.
>
> # The subject of this thread is not suitable,
> # but please let me report to not leave just a wrong information.
>
> First, the difference between OTP 20.3.4 and 21.0-rc2 is as follows.
> (on macOS, OTPs are installed from git by kerl)
>
> Setup file a and b, a is owned by root user.
> % rm -f a && rm -f b && sudo touch a && sudo chmod 755 a && touch b
>
> Let's start OTP 21.0-rc2 and read file_info of a and write it to b,
> it fails:
> % ~/local/otp/OTP-21.0-rc2/bin/erl
> Erlang/OTP 21 [RELEASE CANDIDATE 2] [erts-10.0] [source] [64-bit]
> [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10] [async-threads:1] [hipe] [sharing-preserving]
>
> Eshell V10.0  (abort with ^G)
> 1> {ok, Fi} = file:read_file_info("a").
> {ok,#file_info{size = 0,type = regular,access = read,
>                atime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>                mtime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>                ctime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>                mode = 33261,links = 1,major_device = 16777220,
>                minor_device = 0,inode = 17846256,uid = 0,gid = 20}}
> 2> file:write_file_info("b", Fi).
> {error,eperm}
>
> Then, start OTP 20.3.4 and replay the same step, it succeeds:
> % ~/local/otp/OTP-20.3.4/bin/erl
> Erlang/OTP 20 [erts-9.3] [source] [64-bit] [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10]
> [async-threads:10] [hipe] [kernel-poll:false]
>
> Eshell V9.3  (abort with ^G)
> 1> {ok, F} = file:read_file_info("a").
> {ok,#file_info{size = 0,type = regular,access = read,
>                atime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>                mtime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>                ctime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>                mode = 33261,links = 1,major_device = 16777220,
>                minor_device = 0,inode = 17846256,uid = 0,gid = 20}}
> 2> file:write_file_info("b", F).
> ok
>
> The file_info records are the same (sorry again...), but the results differ.
>
> Looking into unix_efile.c on maint-20 branch:
>     https://github.com/erlang/otp/blob/maint-20/erts/emulator/drivers/unix/unix_efile.c#L572
> it ignores eperm error and proceeds forward:
>     if (chown(name, pInfo->uid, pInfo->gid) && errno != EPERM) {
>
> I'm not sure the difference is judged as incompatibility or not,
> it's nice if this note helps someone (including future me).
>
> Thanks,
> Shino
>
> 2018-06-07 15:07 GMT+09:00 Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]>:
>> I'm sorry I was wrong. Thanks for correct me, Bjorn.
>> I have to dig the root cause down ;)
>>
>> Shino
>>
>> 2018-06-07 15:04 GMT+09:00 Björn Gustavsson <[hidden email]>:
>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> It seems that some fields are added to file_info record between 20 and 21-rc2,
>>>
>>> "Seems"?
>>>
>>> No fields have been added for a very long time. The only
>>> modifications done in recent releases are updates
>>> to the types of the existing fields. The last such change
>>> was made at the end of 2015.
>>>
>>> /Bjorn
>>>
>>> --
>>> Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB



--
Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maybe potential incompatibility of file_info record

shunichi shinohara
Thanks a lot!!

2018-06-07 17:35 GMT+09:00 Björn Gustavsson <[hidden email]>:

> Thanks for digging deeper.
>
> The old efile_driver has been rewritten and
> replaced with a NIF. I am not sure whether
> this change is an oversight/bug or a deliberate
> change. We will look into it before the release
> of OTP 21 and either fix the bug or add a
> note about the potential incompatibility.
>
> /Björn
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I looked into the source code and I think the difference between 20
>> and 21.0-rc2 is identified.
>>
>> # The subject of this thread is not suitable,
>> # but please let me report to not leave just a wrong information.
>>
>> First, the difference between OTP 20.3.4 and 21.0-rc2 is as follows.
>> (on macOS, OTPs are installed from git by kerl)
>>
>> Setup file a and b, a is owned by root user.
>> % rm -f a && rm -f b && sudo touch a && sudo chmod 755 a && touch b
>>
>> Let's start OTP 21.0-rc2 and read file_info of a and write it to b,
>> it fails:
>> % ~/local/otp/OTP-21.0-rc2/bin/erl
>> Erlang/OTP 21 [RELEASE CANDIDATE 2] [erts-10.0] [source] [64-bit]
>> [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10] [async-threads:1] [hipe] [sharing-preserving]
>>
>> Eshell V10.0  (abort with ^G)
>> 1> {ok, Fi} = file:read_file_info("a").
>> {ok,#file_info{size = 0,type = regular,access = read,
>>                atime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>>                mtime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>>                ctime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>>                mode = 33261,links = 1,major_device = 16777220,
>>                minor_device = 0,inode = 17846256,uid = 0,gid = 20}}
>> 2> file:write_file_info("b", Fi).
>> {error,eperm}
>>
>> Then, start OTP 20.3.4 and replay the same step, it succeeds:
>> % ~/local/otp/OTP-20.3.4/bin/erl
>> Erlang/OTP 20 [erts-9.3] [source] [64-bit] [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10]
>> [async-threads:10] [hipe] [kernel-poll:false]
>>
>> Eshell V9.3  (abort with ^G)
>> 1> {ok, F} = file:read_file_info("a").
>> {ok,#file_info{size = 0,type = regular,access = read,
>>                atime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>>                mtime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>>                ctime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>>                mode = 33261,links = 1,major_device = 16777220,
>>                minor_device = 0,inode = 17846256,uid = 0,gid = 20}}
>> 2> file:write_file_info("b", F).
>> ok
>>
>> The file_info records are the same (sorry again...), but the results differ.
>>
>> Looking into unix_efile.c on maint-20 branch:
>>     https://github.com/erlang/otp/blob/maint-20/erts/emulator/drivers/unix/unix_efile.c#L572
>> it ignores eperm error and proceeds forward:
>>     if (chown(name, pInfo->uid, pInfo->gid) && errno != EPERM) {
>>
>> I'm not sure the difference is judged as incompatibility or not,
>> it's nice if this note helps someone (including future me).
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shino
>>
>> 2018-06-07 15:07 GMT+09:00 Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]>:
>>> I'm sorry I was wrong. Thanks for correct me, Bjorn.
>>> I have to dig the root cause down ;)
>>>
>>> Shino
>>>
>>> 2018-06-07 15:04 GMT+09:00 Björn Gustavsson <[hidden email]>:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> It seems that some fields are added to file_info record between 20 and 21-rc2,
>>>>
>>>> "Seems"?
>>>>
>>>> No fields have been added for a very long time. The only
>>>> modifications done in recent releases are updates
>>>> to the types of the existing fields. The last such change
>>>> was made at the end of 2015.
>>>>
>>>> /Bjorn
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
>
>
>
> --
> Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maybe potential incompatibility of file_info record

John Högberg
Hi,

This is an intentional bugfix, and I've added a release note for it
now. Thanks for reporting it!

Regards,
John Högberg

On tor, 2018-06-07 at 17:38 +0900, Shunichi Shinohara wrote:

> Thanks a lot!!
>
> 2018-06-07 17:35 GMT+09:00 Björn Gustavsson <[hidden email]>:
> >
> > Thanks for digging deeper.
> >
> > The old efile_driver has been rewritten and
> > replaced with a NIF. I am not sure whether
> > this change is an oversight/bug or a deliberate
> > change. We will look into it before the release
> > of OTP 21 and either fix the bug or add a
> > note about the potential incompatibility.
> >
> > /Björn
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <shino.shun@gmai
> > l.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I looked into the source code and I think the difference between
> > > 20
> > > and 21.0-rc2 is identified.
> > >
> > > # The subject of this thread is not suitable,
> > > # but please let me report to not leave just a wrong information.
> > >
> > > First, the difference between OTP 20.3.4 and 21.0-rc2 is as
> > > follows.
> > > (on macOS, OTPs are installed from git by kerl)
> > >
> > > Setup file a and b, a is owned by root user.
> > > % rm -f a && rm -f b && sudo touch a && sudo chmod 755 a && touch
> > > b
> > >
> > > Let's start OTP 21.0-rc2 and read file_info of a and write it to
> > > b,
> > > it fails:
> > > % ~/local/otp/OTP-21.0-rc2/bin/erl
> > > Erlang/OTP 21 [RELEASE CANDIDATE 2] [erts-10.0] [source] [64-bit]
> > > [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10] [async-threads:1] [hipe] [sharing-
> > > preserving]
> > >
> > > Eshell V10.0  (abort with ^G)
> > > 1> {ok, Fi} = file:read_file_info("a").
> > > {ok,#file_info{size = 0,type = regular,access = read,
> > >                atime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
> > >                mtime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
> > >                ctime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
> > >                mode = 33261,links = 1,major_device = 16777220,
> > >                minor_device = 0,inode = 17846256,uid = 0,gid =
> > > 20}}
> > > 2> file:write_file_info("b", Fi).
> > > {error,eperm}
> > >
> > > Then, start OTP 20.3.4 and replay the same step, it succeeds:
> > > % ~/local/otp/OTP-20.3.4/bin/erl
> > > Erlang/OTP 20 [erts-9.3] [source] [64-bit] [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10]
> > > [async-threads:10] [hipe] [kernel-poll:false]
> > >
> > > Eshell V9.3  (abort with ^G)
> > > 1> {ok, F} = file:read_file_info("a").
> > > {ok,#file_info{size = 0,type = regular,access = read,
> > >                atime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
> > >                mtime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
> > >                ctime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
> > >                mode = 33261,links = 1,major_device = 16777220,
> > >                minor_device = 0,inode = 17846256,uid = 0,gid =
> > > 20}}
> > > 2> file:write_file_info("b", F).
> > > ok
> > >
> > > The file_info records are the same (sorry again...), but the
> > > results differ.
> > >
> > > Looking into unix_efile.c on maint-20 branch:
> > >     https://github.com/erlang/otp/blob/maint-20/erts/emulator/dri
> > > vers/unix/unix_efile.c#L572
> > > it ignores eperm error and proceeds forward:
> > >     if (chown(name, pInfo->uid, pInfo->gid) && errno != EPERM) {
> > >
> > > I'm not sure the difference is judged as incompatibility or not,
> > > it's nice if this note helps someone (including future me).
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Shino
> > >
> > > 2018-06-07 15:07 GMT+09:00 Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]
> > > om>:
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry I was wrong. Thanks for correct me, Bjorn.
> > > > I have to dig the root cause down ;)
> > > >
> > > > Shino
> > > >
> > > > 2018-06-07 15:04 GMT+09:00 Björn Gustavsson <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <shino.shu
> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems that some fields are added to file_info record
> > > > > > between 20 and 21-rc2,
> > > > > "Seems"?
> > > > >
> > > > > No fields have been added for a very long time. The only
> > > > > modifications done in recent releases are updates
> > > > > to the types of the existing fields. The last such change
> > > > > was made at the end of 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > > /Bjorn
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
> >
> >
> > --
> > Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Maybe potential incompatibility of file_info record

shunichi shinohara
Thanks for the information.
Then, rebar3 (through erlware_commons) should be fixed for OTP-21.

Regards,
Shino


2018-06-12 23:17 GMT+09:00 John Högberg <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> This is an intentional bugfix, and I've added a release note for it
> now. Thanks for reporting it!
>
> Regards,
> John Högberg
>
> On tor, 2018-06-07 at 17:38 +0900, Shunichi Shinohara wrote:
>> Thanks a lot!!
>>
>> 2018-06-07 17:35 GMT+09:00 Björn Gustavsson <[hidden email]>:
>> >
>> > Thanks for digging deeper.
>> >
>> > The old efile_driver has been rewritten and
>> > replaced with a NIF. I am not sure whether
>> > this change is an oversight/bug or a deliberate
>> > change. We will look into it before the release
>> > of OTP 21 and either fix the bug or add a
>> > note about the potential incompatibility.
>> >
>> > /Björn
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <shino.shun@gmai
>> > l.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I looked into the source code and I think the difference between
>> > > 20
>> > > and 21.0-rc2 is identified.
>> > >
>> > > # The subject of this thread is not suitable,
>> > > # but please let me report to not leave just a wrong information.
>> > >
>> > > First, the difference between OTP 20.3.4 and 21.0-rc2 is as
>> > > follows.
>> > > (on macOS, OTPs are installed from git by kerl)
>> > >
>> > > Setup file a and b, a is owned by root user.
>> > > % rm -f a && rm -f b && sudo touch a && sudo chmod 755 a && touch
>> > > b
>> > >
>> > > Let's start OTP 21.0-rc2 and read file_info of a and write it to
>> > > b,
>> > > it fails:
>> > > % ~/local/otp/OTP-21.0-rc2/bin/erl
>> > > Erlang/OTP 21 [RELEASE CANDIDATE 2] [erts-10.0] [source] [64-bit]
>> > > [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10] [async-threads:1] [hipe] [sharing-
>> > > preserving]
>> > >
>> > > Eshell V10.0  (abort with ^G)
>> > > 1> {ok, Fi} = file:read_file_info("a").
>> > > {ok,#file_info{size = 0,type = regular,access = read,
>> > >                atime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>> > >                mtime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>> > >                ctime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>> > >                mode = 33261,links = 1,major_device = 16777220,
>> > >                minor_device = 0,inode = 17846256,uid = 0,gid =
>> > > 20}}
>> > > 2> file:write_file_info("b", Fi).
>> > > {error,eperm}
>> > >
>> > > Then, start OTP 20.3.4 and replay the same step, it succeeds:
>> > > % ~/local/otp/OTP-20.3.4/bin/erl
>> > > Erlang/OTP 20 [erts-9.3] [source] [64-bit] [smp:8:8] [ds:8:8:10]
>> > > [async-threads:10] [hipe] [kernel-poll:false]
>> > >
>> > > Eshell V9.3  (abort with ^G)
>> > > 1> {ok, F} = file:read_file_info("a").
>> > > {ok,#file_info{size = 0,type = regular,access = read,
>> > >                atime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>> > >                mtime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>> > >                ctime = {{2018,6,7},{15,32,41}},
>> > >                mode = 33261,links = 1,major_device = 16777220,
>> > >                minor_device = 0,inode = 17846256,uid = 0,gid =
>> > > 20}}
>> > > 2> file:write_file_info("b", F).
>> > > ok
>> > >
>> > > The file_info records are the same (sorry again...), but the
>> > > results differ.
>> > >
>> > > Looking into unix_efile.c on maint-20 branch:
>> > >     https://github.com/erlang/otp/blob/maint-20/erts/emulator/dri
>> > > vers/unix/unix_efile.c#L572
>> > > it ignores eperm error and proceeds forward:
>> > >     if (chown(name, pInfo->uid, pInfo->gid) && errno != EPERM) {
>> > >
>> > > I'm not sure the difference is judged as incompatibility or not,
>> > > it's nice if this note helps someone (including future me).
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Shino
>> > >
>> > > 2018-06-07 15:07 GMT+09:00 Shunichi Shinohara <[hidden email]
>> > > om>:
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm sorry I was wrong. Thanks for correct me, Bjorn.
>> > > > I have to dig the root cause down ;)
>> > > >
>> > > > Shino
>> > > >
>> > > > 2018-06-07 15:04 GMT+09:00 Björn Gustavsson <[hidden email]>:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Shunichi Shinohara <shino.shu
>> > > > > [hidden email]> wrote:
>> > > > > [...]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > It seems that some fields are added to file_info record
>> > > > > > between 20 and 21-rc2,
>> > > > > "Seems"?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No fields have been added for a very long time. The only
>> > > > > modifications done in recent releases are updates
>> > > > > to the types of the existing fields. The last such change
>> > > > > was made at the end of 2015.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > /Bjorn
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Björn Gustavsson, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
_______________________________________________
erlang-questions mailing list
[hidden email]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions