From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 19 May 2001 10:20:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 19 May 2001 10:20:08 -0400 Received: from hera.cwi.nl ([192.16.191.8]:33499 "EHLO hera.cwi.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 May 2001 10:19:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 16:19:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl Message-Id: To: bcrl@redhat.com, viro@math.psu.edu Subject: Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup) Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alexander Viro writes: > Folks, before you get all excited about cramming side effects > into open(2), consider ... I agree completely. > A lot of stuff relies on the fact that close(open(foo, O_RDONLY)) > is a no-op. Breaking that assumption is a Bad Thing(tm). Also here I would like to agree. Unfortunately this is false. Opening device files often has interesting side effects. Andries