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

[Joerg Schilling]

"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >>>>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.
...

> 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.)
>
> What I object to is the random, meaningless and misleading application 
> of the f- suffix.

This is what I would concur.

I could live with the meaningless f- prefixes being removed for the POSIX
variant of the interface.

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/