Re: [PATCH] llink(2) (was: Re: Adding linux_link(2) system call, second round)

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20110801094633.GA17422%homeworld.netbsd.org@localhost>,
Emmanuel Dreyfus  <manu%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 06:36:53PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> I don't have an issue with it as long as:
>>      - fsck does not get confused
>>      - filesystems don't need to be modified to support it
>>      - there is consensus that this is not harmful
>>      - I am also ambivalent about exposing this in the native abi
>>        because it will only cause confusion.
>
>Attached is the patch that adds llink(2) and its documentation. The test I
>ran are below (the llink program just calls llink(2)).
>
>fsck has no probmem with it, ffs was not modified. For it
>being harmful, I cannot immagine what could be done with it, but 
>we could restrict it to root just in case.
>
>On confusion, well, I think the llink name speaks by itself.

Except for the ktruser() call, looks good to me (my personal opinion).

christos