On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 04:27:12PM +0000, David Holland wrote: > > Does that mean AT_FDCW should be guarded by #ifdef _NETBSD_SOURCE > > until the whole Extended API Set Part 2 is implemented? > > There's a preexisting patch set for *at somewhere. It got rejected in > its original form because it did horrible things instead of > interfacing semi-sanely to namei.
But that does not answer the original question: it is sane to ifdef _NETBSD_SOURCE a partial implementation of linkat(), while the full thing is not yet ready. -- Emmanuel Dreyfus m...@netbsd.org
