Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Adam Hamsik <haaaad%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
> That must be a part from different patch from dh@. I have removed it  
> in current version. Look at current version of patch. It was cleaned up.

If we are going this way, I think we should not create a syscall for each
*at() function.  Rather have one generic to handle these cases (c.f. mouse's
suggested way).

-- 
Mindaugas