[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0907051735030.3210@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:40:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, dhowells@...hat.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hch@...radead.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, adilger@....com,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mtk.manpages@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vfs: new open(2) flag to open filesystem node
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> I am still not sure whether this shouldn't rather be an implementation
> of POSIX's O_SEARCH or whether it is already an O_SEARCH
> implementation.
Umm. That makes no sense at all.
O_SEARCH is only meaningful for directories. For anything else, it's not
at all POSIX - it's expressly defined to be "undefined".
So clearly, O_SEARCH is absolutely the _wrong_ thing to do. Claiming that
"it is POSIX" is pure and utter garbage, because it is _not_ POSIX in any
relevant way. Sure, POSIX allows us to have flying monkeys out of our
butts when you specify O_SEARCH, but where's the advantage? Undefined
behavior is undefined behavior.
It would be clearly and unambiguously _better_ to have another O_xyz flag,
that people can then do
#ifdef O_xyz
.. get some well-defined Linux extension behavior ..
#endif
in their source code, rather than overlead an undefined case with random
crap.
Linus
--
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