From owner-cvs-all Mon Apr 6 11:26:18 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA03012 for cvs-all-outgoing; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:26:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA03000 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:26:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA17108; Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:26:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sef) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 11:26:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199804061826.LAA17108@kithrup.com> To: peter@netplex.com.au Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_vnops.c src/sys/sys fcntl.h Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199804061819.CAA16619@spinner.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk >I never said anything about deleting syscalls, or changing other chunks of >the system to use it. The main objective was to allow an open (not in >O_CREAT mode) to be immune to symlinks, the other stuff was a 'gee, it >wouldn't be too hard to actually make it do something useful instead of >just returning an errno from open.' Then it's *STILL* a bad change, because the intent of symlinks aren't really files. Again: PLEASE BACK IT OUT. Or make the open fail with an error -- EMLINK or ELOOP seem reasonable. Although even then, I don't like it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message