[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 04:27:12PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> > Does that mean AT_FDCW should be guarded by #ifdef _NETBSD_SOURCE
> > until the whole Extended API Set Part 2 is implemented?
> There's a preexisting patch set for *at somewhere. It got rejected in
> its original form because it did horrible things instead of
> interfacing semi-sanely to namei.
But that does not answer the original question: it is sane to
ifdef _NETBSD_SOURCE a partial implementation of linkat(), while the
full thing is not yet ready.
Main Index |
Thread Index |