[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:38:36PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius 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).
Given that the calls, broken names and all, have been railroaded into
POSIX, there's not much point holding back. IMO.
I used to think there was some karmic virtue in having ~100 instead of
~300 distinct system calls, but there's really no point in
consolidating as long as the 300 are reasonably well organized.
David A. Holland
Main Index |
Thread Index |