Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]devicearguments from lookup)

2001-05-24 Thread Oliver Xymoron
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Marko Kreen wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 02:23:27AM +0200, Edgar Toernig wrote: > > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > > It's going to be marked 'd', it's a directory, not a file. > > > > > > > > Aha. So you lose the S_ISCHR/BLK attribute. > > > > > > Readdir fills in a dire

Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]devicearguments from lookup)

2001-05-23 Thread Oliver Xymoron
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > *boggle* > > > > > > > >[general sense of unease] > > > > I fully agree with Oliver. It's an abomination. > > We are, or at least, I am, investigating this question purely on > technical grounds - name calling is a noop. I'd be happy to find a

Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]devicearguments from lookup)

2001-05-22 Thread Oliver Xymoron
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > I don't think it's likely to be even workable. Just consider the > > directory entry for a moment - is it going to be marked d or [cb]? > > It's going to be marked 'd', it's a directory, not a file. Are we talking about the same proposal? The one

Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]devicearguments from lookup)

2001-05-22 Thread Oliver Xymoron
On Mon, 21 May 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Monday 21 May 2001 19:16, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > > What I'd like to see: > > > > - An interface for registering an array of related devices (almost > > always two: raw and ctl) and their legacy device numbers wit

Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]device arguments from lookup)

2001-05-21 Thread Oliver Xymoron
iple openers don't make sense. Opening a floppy at different densities with magic filenames was an example Linus used earlier in the thread. Surely there can be more than one drive and more than one serial port. > On Mon, 21 May 2001, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > > > On Sat, 19 May 200

Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]device arguments from lookup)

2001-05-21 Thread Oliver Xymoron
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Why are LVM and EVMS(competing LVM project) needed at all? > > Surely the same can be accomplished with > * md > * snapshot blkdev (attached in previous e-mail) > * giving partitions and blkdevs the ability to grow and shrink > * giving filesystems the ab

Re: Why side-effects on open(2) are evil. (was Re: [RFD w/info-PATCH]device arguments from lookup)

2001-05-21 Thread Oliver Xymoron
On Sat, 19 May 2001, Alexander Viro wrote: > Let's distinguish between per-fd effects (that's what name in > open(name, flags) is for - you are asking for descriptor and telling > what behaviour do you want for IO on it) and system-wide side effects. > > IMO encoding the former into name is perfe