Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2

Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> > This patch implements the revoke(2) and frevoke(2) system calls for
> > all types of files. The operation is done in passes: first we replace
> 
> 
> Do we need revoke()? open()+frevoke() should be fast enough, no?

Why do we need [f]revoke at all?  As it doesn't implement the
BSD semantic I can't see why it's better than fuser -k.

Ciao, ET.
-
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: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2
    • From: "Pekka Enberg" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2
    • From: Pekka J Enberg <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2
    • From: Pavel Machek <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch] i386: fix stuck unwind into kernel thread
• Next by Date: Re: 2.6.18-rc3-g3b445eea BUG: warning at /usr/src/linux-git/kernel/cpu.c:51/unlock_cpu_hotplug()
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2
• 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]