Linus Torvalds wrote: > Well, the patch as sent in does seem sane, as long as glibc doesn't start > defaulting to the insane behaviour. Giving users the _ability_ to link to > the symlink target is certainly not wrong, regardless of any standard. > Doing it by default is another matter. I do not intend to change the link implementation in glibc. That would be majorly stupid, it'd break the ABI. The AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW flag to linkat was the result of the discussion how to resolve the issue of the conflict between POSIX and the Linux implementation of link (BTW: the Solaris link syscall behaves the same as Linux's). This is an easy an non-intrusive way to help people who depend on the questionable POSIx-mandated behavior to work around the incompatiblity. Nothing more. Don't change the link syscall, don't assume the glibc will be changed. This is only one little extra bit of new functionality. -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- [PATCH] Implement AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW flag for linkat
- From: Ulrich Drepper <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Implement AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW flag for linkat
- From: Al Viro <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Implement AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW flag for linkat
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Implement AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW flag for linkat
- Prev by Date: Re: Sparse minor space in ub
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2/5] vfs: d_genocide() doesnt add dentries to unused list
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Implement AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW flag for linkat
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Implement AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW flag for linkat
- Index(es):
 |