Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Jun 1999 13:50:02 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: Improving the Unix API |
| |
On Sun, 27 Jun 1999, der Mouse wrote:
> > Another problem was the ability to change the mount status of a partition > > from read-write to read-only or to unmounted, > > See NetBSD (and presumably other BSD) "mount -o update,rdonly" and/or > "umount -f". (Last I tried, the latter didn't work as it should, but > that's a matter of fixing bugs rather than introducing new features.)
mount -o remount,ro on Linux. What was the problem? Indeed you can't do it if you have files opened for write there (or pending removal of files from unlinks), but that limitation is reasonable, IMHO.
> > As for the opening with no permissions - well, it would make *big* > > sense if we could narrow down the API and move chown(), chmod(), etc. > > into libc leaving f-variants in the kernel. > > I really don't like that. The reasons why are (1) this means you have > to have an fd free to do them; (2) it triples the number of user/kernel > crossings involved.
The former is not too terrible, but the latter... Yup.
> > Extreme variant might include {set,get}sockopt extended to files and > > doing both *stat and *ch{mod,own,flags} via that. > > If done, I think the name should be changed. They are ?etSOCKopt, > after all. I'm not fond of this, though; it amounts to returning to > using ioctl() for the tasks - albeit with a slightly different name.
The *only* way to make it reasonable would be to have a hierarchical namespace for the options. Otherwise you are just getting the ioctl() mess, and that's the last thing I'ld like to see.
- 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/
| |