On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:33:23AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Dumb thought: would it make sense to add an O_CAREFUL flag to open(), to
> disable side effects? It seems that a number of devices have this issue
> and one have to jump through weird hoops to configure them. Obviously,
> a file descriptor obtained with O_CAREFUL may not be fully functional,
> at the device driver's option.
>
> For a conventional file, directory, or block device O_CAREFUL is a
> no-op.
What about door locking on block devices? That might be an undesirable
side effect in some circumstances, so you might not want it to be a no-op
on blockdevs.
> For ttys it would typically behave similar to O_NONBLOCK
> followed immediately by a fcntl to clear the nonblock flag.
What about, eg, raising DTR and RTS ? You'd want to avoid raising
those if you're not actually going to be using the port.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
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]
