I would be glad to hear someone correcting me but as I see it - the
situation is a complete mess. The O_xxx flags for open(2) are duplicated in
the glibc2's <fcntl.h> and the kernel's <linux/fcntl.h> (or <asm/fcntl.h>
the same). So, if I now implement O_NOFOLLOW or O_NONAME as an enhancement to
open(2) it is not immediately visible to user space. And if I force user
app to #include <asm/fcntl.h> then it will lose other important things,
like R_OK, W_OK etc, which are in <fcntl.h> (well <fcntlbits.h> actually)
but not in <linux/fcntl.h>. And I won't get declaration of open(2) that
way.
Why are not glibc2 maintainers include <asm/fcntl.h> from <fcntlbits.h>,
just like <resourcebits.h> includes <asm/resource.h> or <socketbits.h>
includes <asm/socket.h>?
What is wrong with asking glibc2 maintainers for /usr/include/fcntlbits.h
to include <asm/fcntl.h>? (and then sorting out all the conflicts like
FASYNC and flock redefinitions, of course).
Regards,
Tigran A. Aivazian, http://www.aivazian.demon.co.uk/
-
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/