Re: The naming of at()s is a difficult matter

[Joerg Schilling]

Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> >> > I have noticed that the new ...at() system calls are named in what
> >> > appears to be a completely haphazard fashion.  In Unix system calls,
> >> > an f- prefix means it operates on a file descriptor; the -at suffix (a
> >> > prefix would have been more consistent, but oh well) similarly
> >> > indicates it operates on a (directory fd, pathname) pair.
> >> >
> >> shmat operates on dirfd/pathname?
> >
> >Do you have a better proposal for naming the interfaces?
> >
>
> chownfn maybe. (fd + name)

I am not shure if this would match the rules from the Opengroup.
Solaris has these interfaces since at least 5 years.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                (uni)  
       schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/