Re: mknod64(1)

• Next message: Stephan von Krawczynski: "Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
• Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [PATCH]: linux-2.5.67-uc0 (MMU-less fix ups)"
• In reply to: Robert Love: "Re: mknod64(1)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Robert Love <rml@tech9.net> writes:

|> On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 17:24, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
|>
|> > What would probably be useful for mknod(1), if it doesn't already, is
|> > to allow the major/minor to be specified in any of the standard bases,
|> > i.e. using strtoul(...,...,0).
|>
|> mknod(1) does not, I think. Actually, maybe it does... it uses some
|> coreutils wrapper.

The wrapper is essentially calling strtol in the end, so yes, coreutils'
mknod does support the standard bases.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, D-90429 Nürnberg
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
-
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: Stephan von Krawczynski: "Are linux-fs's drive-fault-tolerant by concept?"
• Previous message: Christoph Hellwig: "Re: [PATCH]: linux-2.5.67-uc0 (MMU-less fix ups)"
• In reply to: Robert Love: "Re: mknod64(1)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 22:00:25 EST