On Thu, 24 May 2001, Edgar Toernig wrote: > > What *won't* happen is, you won't get side effects from opening > > your serial ports (you'd have to open them without O_DIRECTORY > > to get that) so that seems like a little step forward. > > As already said: depending on O_DIRECTORY breaks POSIX compliance > and that alone should kill this idea... What really kills that idea is the fact that you can trick applications into opening your serial ports _without_ O_DIRECTORY. - 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/... Alexander Viro
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [R... Daniel Phillips
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [R... Hans Reiser
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re... Daniel Phillips
- Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: Why side-effects on o... Hans Reiser
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [R... Daniel Phillips
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [R... Daniel Phillips
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re... Edgar Toernig
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (wa... Edgar Toernig
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil.... Daniel Phillips
- Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are ... Marko Kreen
