On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 03:04:31PM +0100, Rogier Wolff wrote:
> Ok, so if you read the standard carefully you get a bogus result.
Why bogus? Things could have been otherwise, but the important
part is that all Unices do things the same way.
> Question: Was it meant this way, or did someone just make a mistake
> (which happened to slip through and get approved into the standard)?
>
> I happen to think the second.
>
> - Is it desirable to have a write-open of a device on a read-only
> fail? I don't think so. You can't open the initial console etc etc.
Nevertheless the standard requires this.
> - Is it desirable to have access (W_OK) and "open-for-write" return
> different results? I don't think so.
Nevertheless there have never been systems where access and open
behaved identically. An easy example is given by directories
that have write access when a w bit is set, but return EISDIR
upon open-for-write.
Andries
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
