From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
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 22:50:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a36005b50907052250n7a73a19r3ce674f08a402703@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0907051735030.3210@localhost.localdomain>
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 17:40, Linus
Torvalds<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> O_SEARCH is only meaningful for directories. For anything else, it's not
> at all POSIX - it's expressly defined to be "undefined".
And this is why there is the differentiation with O_EXEC. Yes, i
didn't mention it in the last email. But I mentioned it when it came
up the first time.
I don't say this is indeed what is wanted/needed here. But there are
IMO some similarities and I think implementing O_SEARCH and O_EXEC is
desirable. If it means completely different implementations from te
proposed O_NODE, so be it. But my gut tells me there is some overlay.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-06 5:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-30 9:56 [RFC PATCH] vfs: new open(2) flag to open filesystem node 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
2009-07-06 5:50 ` Ulrich Drepper [this message]
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=a36005b50907052250n7a73a19r3ce674f08a402703@mail.gmail.com \
--to=drepper@gmail.com \
--cc=adilger@sun.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.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=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).