On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 09:59:18PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > BTW, could we finally lose mpx(2)?
> >
> > Maybe we lost it - I find sys_mpx only in a comment in arch/arm/kernel/calls.S
>
> Sure, but man2/mpx.2 is alive and well...
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > BTW, if you still have 1.7, 1.10, 1.13 and 1.14...
>
> See ftp://ftp.cwi.nl/pub/aeb/manpages/ (will soon disappear again).
Got them, thanks.
> > BTW, could we finally lose mpx(2)?
>
> Maybe we lost it - I find sys_mpx only in a comment in
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:24:31AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > Al, currently walking through the /usr/share/man/man2 and swearing silently...
>
> Swearing? At the POSIX decisions or at the man page quality?
Mostly at the
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:24:31AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Al, currently walking through the /usr/share/man/man2 and swearing silently...
Swearing? At the POSIX decisions or at the man page quality?
In the latter case, additions and corrections are very welcome.
Make sure that you have
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 08:23:59AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Oh, lovely - where the hell had the following come from?
> % man truncate
> ...
>EINVAL The pathname contains a character with the high-
> order bit set.
> ...
> Andries, would you mind removing that,
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> yet. So far you only said that a different implementation, i.e. a
> different place to put the checks, is preferrable.
-EPERM returned by permission() if we ask for write access to immutable.
Al, currently walking through the /usr/share/man/man2
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> > The rationale for being compatible with 4.4BSD on append-only but not on
> > immutable is -- for immutable we can do the test by means of permission()
> > fast but for append-only we would need an extra
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> So correct solution may very well be to change the return value of
> permission(9). FWIW, MAY_TRUNCATE might be a good idea - notice that
> knfsd already has something like that. It makes sense for directories,
> BTW - having may_delete() drop the
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> The rationale for being compatible with 4.4BSD on append-only but not on
> immutable is -- for immutable we can do the test by means of permission()
> fast but for append-only we would need an extra if() above permission so
> let's just be
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> a) we don't hit that test because permission takes care of it (for
> regulars/dirs/symlinks but here only regulars are important)
omit what is in brackets but everything in email and the patch itself are
valid and tested. The detail in bracket above
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Why remove the EROFS test?
>
> there, so if it's not a regular file we die before the call of permission(),
> if it is and fs is readonly - we get -EROFS from permission() and die
> there. In either case we
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Why remove the EROFS test?
there, so if it's not a regular file we die before the call of permission(),
if it is and fs is readonly - we get -EROFS from permission() and die
there. In either case we don't
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
The rationale for being compatible with 4.4BSD on append-only but not on
immutable is -- for immutable we can do the test by means of permission()
fast but for append-only we would need an extra if() above permission so
let's just be
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
So correct solution may very well be to change the return value of
permission(9). FWIW, MAY_TRUNCATE might be a good idea - notice that
knfsd already has something like that. It makes sense for directories,
BTW - having may_delete() drop the
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
The rationale for being compatible with 4.4BSD on append-only but not on
immutable is -- for immutable we can do the test by means of permission()
fast but for append-only we would need an extra if()
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
yet. So far you only said that a different implementation, i.e. a
different place to put the checks, is preferrable.
-EPERM returned by permission() if we ask for write access to immutable.
Al, currently walking through the /usr/share/man/man2 and
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 08:23:59AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
looking at the truncate(2) manpage
Oh, lovely - where the hell had the following come from?
% man truncate
...
EINVAL The pathname contains a character with the high-
order bit set.
...
Andries, would
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:24:31AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Al, currently walking through the /usr/share/man/man2 and swearing silently...
Swearing? At the POSIX decisions or at the man page quality?
In the latter case, additions and corrections are very welcome.
Make sure that you have
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Andries Brouwer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 10:24:31AM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Al, currently walking through the /usr/share/man/man2 and swearing silently...
Swearing? At the POSIX decisions or at the man page quality?
Mostly at the
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, if you still have 1.7, 1.10, 1.13 and 1.14...
See ftp://ftp.cwi.nl/pub/aeb/manpages/ (will soon disappear again).
Got them, thanks.
BTW, could we finally lose mpx(2)?
Maybe we lost it - I find sys_mpx only in a comment in
20 matches
Mail list logo
