Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:05:26 +0200 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: final decision about *at syscalls Message-ID: <20080416180526.GA32235@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <20080416175832.GX18958@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20071218092222.GA9695@freebsd.org> <200712201138.56423.jhb@freebsd.org> <20080412112019.GI45299@garage.freebsd.pl> <200804161014.41025.jhb@freebsd.org> <20080416165612.GA31094@garage.freebsd.pl> <20080416170341.GN95731@elvis.mu.org> <20080416184522.F1046@fledge.watson.org> <20080416175832.GX18958@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 08:58:32PM +0300, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 06:52:12PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: > > NDINIT() is already aware of the file descriptor array because it uses that > > to get the current working and root directories. And what the *at() system > > calls are effectively doing is substituting another directory for the > > current working directory. The exact expression of all this doesn't matter > > all that much to me, but I think evaluating the file descriptor array for > > directory stuff all in one place, rather than spread over the caller and > > NDINIT(), is cleaner and avoids a lot of code everywhere. Nothing says you > > can't have: > > > > void > > NDINIT(struct nameidata *ndp, u_long op, u_long flags, > > enum uio_seg segflg, const char *namep, struct thread *td); > > > > void > > NDINIT_AT(struct nameidata *ndp, u_long op, u_long flags, > > enum uio_seg segflg, const char *namep, int fd, struct thread *td); > > > > NDINIT_DVP(struct nameidata *ndp, u_long op, u_long flags, > > enum uio_seg segflg, const char *namep, struct vnode *vp, > > struct thread *td); > > > > However, I think I wouldn't want NDINIT_AT() to be a wrapper for > > NDINIT_DVP(), because I'd like all that fdp following to occur together. > > I already mailed the patch implementing all the above, modulo > s/_DVP/_ATVP/. I want to get the response from Pawel and others. If > positive, the patch is to be tested and committed. Back when we discussed NDINIT_AT(), I was a bit opposed, because I was afraid that we will grow more NDINIT_<arg>() functions. I preferred to just initialize additional arguments directly, eg. NDINIT(&nd, foo, bar); nd.ni_dirfd = fd; nd.ni_startvp = dvp; namei(&nd); At this point I don't really care, I can use NDINIT_DVP/NDINIT_ATVP. > I see no reason for heating the debate. Agreed. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl pjd@FreeBSD.org http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFIBj/jForvXbEpPzQRAgO6AKDWUm3ngdma89OX/Ce7THAgKcJL7gCggABl fAyvTnNC1/DocpuLfJc6qhU= =DzdD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080416180526.GA32235>