[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060727174307.GC5178@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:43:07 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Pekka J Enberg <penberg@...Helsinki.FI>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...l.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, tytso@....edu,
tigran@...itas.com
Subject: Re: O_CAREFUL flag to disable open() side effects
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:33:23AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Dumb thought: would it make sense to add an O_CAREFUL flag to open(), to
> disable side effects? It seems that a number of devices have this issue
> and one have to jump through weird hoops to configure them. Obviously,
> a file descriptor obtained with O_CAREFUL may not be fully functional,
> at the device driver's option.
>
> For a conventional file, directory, or block device O_CAREFUL is a
> no-op.
What about door locking on block devices? That might be an undesirable
side effect in some circumstances, so you might not want it to be a no-op
on blockdevs.
> For ttys it would typically behave similar to O_NONBLOCK
> followed immediately by a fcntl to clear the nonblock flag.
What about, eg, raising DTR and RTS ? You'd want to avoid raising
those if you're not actually going to be using the port.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists