From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 20:28:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 20:28:05 -0400 Received: from chac.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.19.54]:9226 "EHLO chac.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 20:27:54 -0400 Message-Id: <200105280126.f4S1QmFM017170@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl> To: Daniel Phillips cc: Edgar Toernig , Oliver Xymoron , linux-kernel , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]device arguments from lookup) In-Reply-To: Message from Daniel Phillips of "Sun, 27 May 2001 22:45:17 +0200." <01052722451714.06233@starship> Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:26:48 -0400 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Daniel Phillips said: > On Sunday 27 May 2001 15:32, Edgar Toernig wrote: [...] > > you break UNIX fundamentals. But I'm quite relieved now because I'm > > pretty sure that something like that will never go into the kernel. > OK, I'll take that as "I couldn't find a piece of code that breaks, so > it's on to the legal issues". It boggles my (perhaps underdeveloped) mind to have things that are files _and_ directories at the same time. The last time this was discussed was for handling forks (a la Mac et al) in files, and it was shot down. > SUS doesn't seem to have a lot to say about this. The nearest thing to > a ruling I found was "The special filename dot refers to the directory > specified by its predecessor". Which is not the same thing as: > > open("foo", O_RDONLY) == open ("foo/.", O_RDONLY) It says "foo" and "foo/." are the same _directory_, where "foo" is a directory as otherwise "foo/" makes no sense, AFAICS. Is there any mention on a _file_ "bar" and going "bar/" or "bar/"? -- Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl Casilla 9G, Vin~a del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616