Subject: Re: New read & write syscalls
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/30/1999 11:28:54
Bill Studenmund <email@example.com> writes:
Why would extra flags to open()/fcntl(F_[GS]ETFL,...) be the wrong
At least naively, i'd think that they'd be the right place to put the
information, for a couple of reasons:
* you can still have an application support multiple types of
access (if concurrent via multiple FDs, if serialized via
* for many applications that want the 'alternate' operation,
it might be unreasonable to recode the application. e.g.
for the compressing file system case, i could easily imagine
a "cat --flags fs_raw file" or something similar. It seems
unwieldy to recode all of the I/O calls to cope with this
That, at least, seems to be the right way to get the 'alternate
semantics' information into the kernel. How to pass it around
internally is less interesting to me (I'm not really a VFS guy 8-).
Chris Demetriou - firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.