Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]device arguments from lookup)

Oliver Xymoron
2001-05-22T17:48:17Z

On Tue, 22 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> > I don't think it's likely to be even workable. Just consider the
> > directory entry for a moment - is it going to be marked d or [cb]?
>
> It's going to be marked 'd', it's a directory, not a file.

Are we talking about the same proposal? The one where I can open /dev/dsp
and /dev/dsp/ctl? But I can still do 'cat /dev/hda > /dev/dsp'?

It's still a file. If it's not a file anymore, it ain't UNIX.

> > If it doesn't have the directory bit set, Midnight commander won't
> > let me look at it, and I wouldn't blame cd or ls for complaining. If it
> > does have the 'd' bit set, I wouldn't blame cp, tar, find, or a
> > million other programs if they did the wrong thing. They've had 30
> > years to expect that files aren't directories. They're going to act
> > weird.
>
> No problem, it's a directory.
>
> > Linus has been kicking this idea around for a couple years now and
> > it's still a cute solution looking for a problem. It just doesn't
> > belong in UNIX.
>
> Hmm, ok, do we still have any *technical* reasons?

If you define *technical* to not include design, sure. Oh, did I
mention unnecessary, solvable in userspace?

--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."