From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: why is O_TMPFILE multiplexed over open() instead of being a separate
 syscall?
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:42:53 -0700
Message-ID: <20130801084253.GA4727@infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:43466 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752214Ab3HAImz (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 1 Aug 2013 04:42:55 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

Sorry for being a bit late to the game, but..

Why is the useful tmpfile functionality multiplexed over open when it
has very different semantics from a normal open?

In addition to the flag problems already discussed to death it also just
leads to splattering of the code in the implementaiton, given that
path_openat branches out really early in path_openat.

What's the problem with a clear single purpose tmpfile() system call?