Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:55:44 -0500 (EST) | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | Subject | Re: <fcntl.h> vs <asm/fcntl.h> - total mess. |
| |
On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> 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/
While they do it, it would be real nice if they fixed the umount() definition that now takes 2 parameters instead of the 1 that glibc shows.
Cheers, Dick Johnson ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED ***** Penguin : Linux version 2.1.131 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips). Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
- 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/
| |