From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: O_CAREFUL flag to disable open() side effects Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:05:16 +0100 Message-ID: <1154023516.13509.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1154021616.13509.68.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44C8F8E3.1070306@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pekka J Enberg , Ulrich Drepper , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, tytso@mit.edu, tigran@veritas.com Return-path: Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:7578 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750813AbWG0Rqq (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:46:46 -0400 To: "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: <44C8F8E3.1070306@zytor.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Ar Iau, 2006-07-27 am 10:33 -0700, ysgrifennodd H. Peter Anvin: > For a conventional file, directory, or block device O_CAREFUL is a > no-op. For ttys it would typically behave similar to O_NONBLOCK > followed immediately by a fcntl to clear the nonblock flag. Linus long ago suggested O_NONE to go with RO/RW/WO. Its not that hard to do with the current file op stuff but you have to work out what the access permission semantics of it are and what it means for ioctl etc