On Sun, Jul 04, 2004 at 04:06:45PM -0600, Stephen Hurd wrote: > > Right, if you just make it cross-platform in the first place using > > higher- level primitives you don't have to worry what the specific > > kernel and operating system and file system you are using provides. > > It's my opinion tha there won't be other people adopting this API for > > file locking since it is by definition not meant to work like the > > standardized APIs. > > > > I don't think that there's no value in having more useful locking > > primitives, but they probably don't benefit much from being implemented > > in the kernel unless they conform to a portable API. I certainly always > > have my own various kernel modifications that I find useful, but aren't > > very standard :) > > This sounds a lot like "Well, there's no point in doing something better > since nobody else is doing it.". strlcpy() and friends are an example of > non-standard stuff that just Makes Sense(tm).
If you're trying to create a new "standard", I think -standards or -arch is the more appropriate FreeBSD list. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
