Re: silent semantic changes with reiser4

[Alan Cox]

On Mer, 2004-09-01 at 06:50, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Yes, changing cat to use openat() is no big deal. 1-2% additional coding 
> cost for cat, who cares? 

Large cost on its own. The FSF would almost certainly reject such a
change until someone had written portable emulation of the feature for 
every other platform which would mean vendor patches which would
essentially mean it wouldn't happen.

I know I rarely agree with Hans but I think he's right on this one, it
has to work with the existing open() API.

Alan

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