[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44C8FFFE.3010402@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:03:42 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: 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
Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Iau, 2006-07-27 am 10:33 -0700, ysgrifennodd H. Peter Anvin:
>> For a conventional file, directory, or block device O_CAREFUL is a
>> no-op. For ttys it would typically behave similar to O_NONBLOCK
>> followed immediately by a fcntl to clear the nonblock flag.
>
> Linus long ago suggested O_NONE to go with RO/RW/WO. Its not that hard
> to do with the current file op stuff but you have to work out what the
> access permission semantics of it are and what it means for ioctl etc
O_NONE might be a good thing to do with that, but I think the "careful"
semantics should be a separate flag (we shouldn't have different side
effects depending on the individual mode.)
O_NONE would be a useful complement to O_CAREFUL though; for some
devices O_CAREFUL with anything *other than* O_NONE might be an invalid
operation.
The semantics would obviously be device dependent, but the basic idea
should be that opening with O_CAREFUL should not disturb the global
state of the device; it should only create a handle.
-hpa
-
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