On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, Alain Knaff wrote:
> >You know, I have nothing against having it that way for CDs and Zips.
> >And you have an interesting idea of old-fashioned - I'ld say that
> >echo(1) was in place way before ioctl(2)...
>
> You're right, echo is indeed older than ioctl. However, ioctl is
> older than /proc, or odd character pseudo-devices that are used solely
> for control.
/proc - sure, but character devices? That's funny, because I distinctly
remember using write() for control of TTY in v7. Stuff like color, etc.
If it's not "solely for control"... Oh, OK - not solely, you have the
control and data streams mixed. And that's better which way?
> The point is not to do "do permissions of time of open", but rather to
> "do permissions independantly of open mode".
Exactly. Sorry for bad English - that's precisely what I meant. Can you
show me another example of such thing?
> If you still find the permission(inode,2) thing so ugly, I could move
> it from open() to fd_ioctl().
No, thanks. That would be even more weird.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
