Re: Why is chmod(2)?

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Wed, 22 Sep 1999 10:28:49 +0100 (BST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] solaris/sparc emul improvements against 2.2.11"
Previous message: bill@taniwha.org: "Re: 2.3.18ac7 won't boot"

> binaries that call chmod(2) and they should continue to work.
> But compatibility aside, can chmod(2) be implemented as chmod(3)
> using open(2) and fchmod(2) and is the same true for all other
> system calls which take pathnames as an argument?
>
> b. Is it possible?

Probably not - open has side effects. Open isnt allowed on devices not
currently present.

-
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: David S. Miller: "Re: [PATCH] solaris/sparc emul improvements against 2.2.11"
Previous message: bill@taniwha.org: "Re: 2.3.18ac7 won't boot"