Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:52:17 +0000 (GMT) | From | Tigran Aivazian <> | Subject | <fcntl.h> vs <asm/fcntl.h> - total mess. |
| |
Hello guys,
I would be glad to hear someone correcting me but as I see it - the situation is a complete mess. The O_xxx flags for open(2) are duplicated in the glibc2's <fcntl.h> and the kernel's <linux/fcntl.h> (or <asm/fcntl.h> the same). So, if I now implement O_NOFOLLOW or O_NONAME as an enhancement to open(2) it is not immediately visible to user space. And if I force user app to #include <asm/fcntl.h> then it will lose other important things, like R_OK, W_OK etc, which are in <fcntl.h> (well <fcntlbits.h> actually) but not in <linux/fcntl.h>. And I won't get declaration of open(2) that way.
Why are not glibc2 maintainers include <asm/fcntl.h> from <fcntlbits.h>, just like <resourcebits.h> includes <asm/resource.h> or <socketbits.h> includes <asm/socket.h>?
What is wrong with asking glibc2 maintainers for /usr/include/fcntlbits.h to include <asm/fcntl.h>? (and then sorting out all the conflicts like FASYNC and flock redefinitions, of course).
Regards, Tigran A. Aivazian, http://www.aivazian.demon.co.uk/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |