Re: Proposal: int (permission*)(struct dentry *, int)

• Next message: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: Can O_SYNC be implemented by using fsync?"
• Previous message: Dan Malek: "Re: Calling testers for another Dead Function Optimisation update"
• In reply to: Brent Callaghan: "Re: Proposal: int (permission*)(struct dentry *, int)"
• Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: Proposal: int (permission*)(struct dentry *, int)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, 15 May 2000, Brent Callaghan wrote:
>
> In summary: filehandles are useful at the protocol level, but it's
> good for clients to retain pathnames if they need to recover
> filehandles.

Agreed 100%. It's only the "filehandles are eternal" mentality that is a
problem. Temporary filehandles are fine.

                Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Jeff V. Merkey: "Re: Can O_SYNC be implemented by using fsync?"
• Previous message: Dan Malek: "Re: Calling testers for another Dead Function Optimisation update"
• In reply to: Brent Callaghan: "Re: Proposal: int (permission*)(struct dentry *, int)"
• Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: Proposal: int (permission*)(struct dentry *, int)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 21:00:26 EST