Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

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
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost