On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The best we can do is to have _sane_ semantics for supporting such
> filesystems. Sane and usable. Things like "fd_open()" make sense even
> without resource forks - it's kind of a private extension of the notion of
> "current working directory", after all.
Good. How about the following implementation of your fd_open():
mount(name, tmp, "ntfork", 0, NULL);
sprintf(tmpname, "%s/%s", tmp, field);
fd = open(tmpname, ......);
return fd;
Yep, requires umount(). But notice that this way we
* don't need any magic syscalls
* avoid all questions about out-of-file renaming, etc.
* don't have to do _any_ VFS changes - it's all there.
* let the userland decide (and explicitly tell us) what it wants.
And yes, I mean making that case of mount() user-available.
Comments? I can implement that for HPFS (EAs) in a day or two. As the
matter of fact, I would _really_ like to do that for _HFS_ - that would
allow to drop tons of ugly code there.
Cheers,
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:28 EST