lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1997]   [Aug]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: chflags() or...? [not: Re: Ext2fs getting hosed by fsck]
   Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:42:21 +0200
From: Janos Farkas <Janos.Farkas-#QK62Trgra5Kf5.RZk0HZ1/cpKyi@shadow.banki.hu>

Hmm.. I was a bit tired recently, and thought about something like a
new syscall to open an _inode_, but later realised that it could be
done with a flag to open(), maybe O_INODE, O_NOFOLLOW, or whatever.

Does that sound too ill? If it fits into VFS somehow, it could be
a quick solution to:

I understand the concern to try to keep the number of system calls to a
minimum, but it sounds really ill to me at least. Adding this kind of
modal interface to system calls seems like a really bad idea to me....
we would be fundamentally changing what ioctl() does depending on an
open flag, and that makes me feel really icky.

- Ted

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:40    [W:0.086 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site