On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 09:10:22AM -0500, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> I'm currently at the POSIX meeting and one thing covered was the
> incompatibility of Linux's link() with the POSIX definition. The
> difference is the treatment of symbolic links in the destination
> name. Linux does not follow symlinks, POSIX requires it does.
>
> Even somebody thinks this is a good default behavior we cannot
> change this because it would break the ABI. But the fact remains
> that some application might want this behavior.
>
> We have one chance to help implementing this without breaking the
> behavior. For this we could use the new linkat interface which
> would need a new flags parameter. If the new parameter is
> AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW the new behavior could be invoked.
>
> I do not want to introduce such a patch now. But we could add the
> parameter now, just don't use it. The patch below would do this.
> Can we get this late patch applied before the release more or less
> fixes the syscall API?
Please stop adding these crappy flags argument everywhere, they're also
creaping like a cancer through the other *at stuff. Just make linkat
do the righ thing per posix spec for link, and then you can implement
a posix link based on it in glibc if the user compiles with XOPEN_SOURCE
or whatever.
-
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/
[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]
