Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Why is chmod(2)? | Date | Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:28:49 +0100 (BST) | From | Alan Cox <> |
| |
> binaries that call chmod(2) and they should continue to work. > But compatibility aside, can chmod(2) be implemented as chmod(3) > using open(2) and fchmod(2) and is the same true for all other > system calls which take pathnames as an argument? > > b. Is it possible?
Probably not - open has side effects. Open isnt allowed on devices not currently present.
- 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/
| |