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

From: Jan Engelhardt
Date: Tue Feb 14 2006 - 13:15:53 EST


>> > > > 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.
>> This is not the cdrecord thread so Solaris is a no-go in this very one.
>
> FWIW, I think the -at() suffix is just fine, and well established by now (yes,
> there is shmat, but the SysV shared memory interfaces are bizarre to begin with
> -- hence POSIX shared memory which has real names.)
>
Yep. Someday, Linux - or rather glibc! for that matter, as it is the one
which translates FUNCTIONNAME() into a syscall -- will be like the Windows
API. Full of compatibility stuff. And you can't do anything about it :)


Jan Engelhardt
--
-
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/