Re: The naming of at()s is a difficult matter

>> > I have noticed that the new ...at() system calls are named in what
>> > appears to be a completely haphazard fashion.  In Unix system calls,
>> > an f- prefix means it operates on a file descriptor; the -at suffix (a
>> > prefix would have been more consistent, but oh well) similarly
>> > indicates it operates on a (directory fd, pathname) pair.
>> >
>> shmat operates on dirfd/pathname?
>
>Do you have a better proposal for naming the interfaces?
>

chownfn maybe. (fd + name)



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

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The naming of at()s is a difficult matter
    • From: Joerg Schilling <[email protected]>

• References:
  • The naming of at()s is a difficult matter
    • From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
  • Re: The naming of at()s is a difficult matter
    • From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
  • Re: The naming of at()s is a difficult matter
    • From: Joerg Schilling <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] [CM4000,CM4040] Add device class bits to enable udev device creation
• Next by Date: [PATCH] [CM4000,CM4040] Driver fixes
• Previous by thread: Re: The naming of at()s is a difficult matter
• Next by thread: Re: The naming of at()s is a difficult matter
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]