tech-kern archive

[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

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index