From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:00:28 -0700 Message-ID: <44C8FF3C.1010506@zytor.com> References: <44C8F8F3.2090606@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pekka J Enberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, tytso@mit.edu, tigran@veritas.com Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:36996 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750776AbWG0SBE (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:01:04 -0400 To: Ulrich Drepper In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Ulrich Drepper wrote: > On 7/27/06, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> No need to add sys_revoke. > > Of course not. I didn't imply that. sys_revokeat is all that's > needed. I just provided the other name to make clear they are > equivalent wrt to the file name property. Not everyone knows the *at > functions. Right. We shouldn't add ANY more filename system calls at all, though. They can be libc wrappers. -hpa