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

2001-05-27 Thread Edgar Toernig
Daniel Phillips wrote: It won't, the open for . is handled in the VFS, not the filesystem - it will open the directory. (Without needing to be told it's a directory via O_DIRECTORY.) If you do open(magicdev) you'll get the device, because that's handled by magicdevfs. You really mean

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

2001-05-27 Thread Daniel Phillips
On Sunday 27 May 2001 15:32, Edgar Toernig wrote: Daniel Phillips wrote: It won't, the open for . is handled in the VFS, not the filesystem - it will open the directory. (Without needing to be told it's a directory via O_DIRECTORY.) If you do open(magicdev) you'll get the device,

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

2001-05-27 Thread Marko Kreen
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:45:17PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: On Sunday 27 May 2001 15:32, Edgar Toernig wrote: Daniel Phillips wrote: I'm not claiming there isn't breakage somewhere, you break UNIX fundamentals. But I'm quite relieved now because I'm pretty sure that something