Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> This patch, against 2.3.99pre3 (or thereabouts) implements an
> O_DEFEROPEN option to open(2).
Why don't you just give O_NONE (value: 3) this behaviour?
O_NONE already works but isn't documented or defined in the header
files. It very nearly does what O_DEFEROPEN does, and arguably your
O_DEFEROPEN patch is what O_NONE _should_ do.
> * Does the idea suck? (It wasn't mine :-)
> * Does the implementation suck?
> * Is it a sufficiently useful facility to sneak under the
> code-freeze?
I think it would be a useful change in O_NONE semantics rather than as a
separate option. (btw, did you see the thread on that topic in
linux-kernel recently?)
-- Jamie
