From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Ulrich Drepper" Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:13:13 -0700 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 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 ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.174]:55483 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751792AbWG0RNO (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:13:14 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m3so379319ugc for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:13:13 -0700 (PDT) To: "Pekka J Enberg" In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 7/27/06, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > Sure. Though I wonder if sys_frevoke is enough for us and we can drop > sys_revoke completely. No, you want sys_revoke/sys_revokeat. Simplest case: /dev/rst0 vs /dev/nrst0. You don't want the open rewind the drive.