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

• Next message: Pete Wyckoff: "Re: dget()"
• Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup, partion code"
• Maybe in reply to: Alexander Viro: "Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup)"
• Next in thread: Alexander Viro: "Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup)"
• Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alexander Viro writes:

> Folks, before you get all excited about cramming side effects
> into open(2), consider ...

I agree completely.

> A lot of stuff relies on the fact that close(open(foo, O_RDONLY))
> is a no-op. Breaking that assumption is a Bad Thing(tm).

Also here I would like to agree. Unfortunately this is false.
Opening device files often has interesting side effects.

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

• Next message: Pete Wyckoff: "Re: dget()"
• Previous message: Alan Cox: "Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup, partion code"
• Maybe in reply to: Alexander Viro: "Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup)"
• Next in thread: Alexander Viro: "Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup)"
• Reply: Alexander Viro: "Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH] device arguments from lookup)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 23 2001 - 21:00:33 EST