nitpicking: a system call without side effects would be pretty useless. Alexander Viro wrote: > A lot of stuff relies on the fact that close(open(foo, O_RDONLY)) is a > no-op. Breaking that assumption is a Bad Thing(tm). That assumption is totally bogus. Even for regular files you have side effects (atime); for anything else they're unpredictable. Ciao, ET. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w... Edgar Toernig
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [... Alexander Viro
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [... Jeff Garzik
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [... Jeff Garzik
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was R... Alan Cox
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was R... Oliver Xymoron
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was R... Andreas Dilger
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (w... Malcolm Beattie
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil... Andreas Dilger
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [... Matthew Kirkwood
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [... Oliver Xymoron