From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
dhowells@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, adilger@sun.com,
alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vfs: new open(2) flag to open filesystem node
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:40:25 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0907051735030.3210@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a36005b50907051235h17f559c6w1937998c7eec0b0@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> I am still not sure whether this shouldn't rather be an implementation
> of POSIX's O_SEARCH or whether it is already an O_SEARCH
> implementation.
Umm. That makes no sense at all.
O_SEARCH is only meaningful for directories. For anything else, it's not
at all POSIX - it's expressly defined to be "undefined".
So clearly, O_SEARCH is absolutely the _wrong_ thing to do. Claiming that
"it is POSIX" is pure and utter garbage, because it is _not_ POSIX in any
relevant way. Sure, POSIX allows us to have flying monkeys out of our
butts when you specify O_SEARCH, but where's the advantage? Undefined
behavior is undefined behavior.
It would be clearly and unambiguously _better_ to have another O_xyz flag,
that people can then do
#ifdef O_xyz
.. get some well-defined Linux extension behavior ..
#endif
in their source code, rather than overlead an undefined case with random
crap.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-06 0:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-30 9:56 Miklos Szeredi
2009-06-30 20:25 ` David Howells
2009-07-01 4:59 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-07-05 19:35 ` Ulrich Drepper
2009-07-06 0:40 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2009-07-06 5:50 ` Ulrich Drepper
2009-07-06 12:29 ` Miklos Szeredi
2009-07-06 15:59 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.01.0907051735030.3210@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=adilger@sun.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=drepper@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome