Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 20:23:52 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, grog@lemis.de Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: linux' mknod and named pipes. Message-ID: <199511180923.UAA17204@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >Is there any good reason why we shouldn't modify mknod to make a fifo >> >when called with the appropriate parameters? >> >> The same reason we shouldn't modify thousands of other system calls to be >> compatible with thousands of other systems: it takes longer and gives >> worse results. >I think that bears discussion. >1. It takes longer: >--- vfs_syscalls.c 1995/11/14 09:19:16 1.40 >+++ vfs_syscalls.c 1995/11/18 08:45:43 >@@ -757,6 +757,13 @@ > int error; > struct nameidata nd; > >+ if (ISFIFO (uap->mode)) >+ { >+ struct mkfifo_args args; >+ args.path = uap->path; >+ args.mode = uap->mode; >+ return mkfifo (p, args); >+ } > error = suser(p->p_ucred, &p->p_acflag); > if (error) > return (error); > OK, I haven't tested this, but it's got to be something like it. > In the normal case, there's a single 'if' involved. It takes longer to write, document, commit and test. Perhaps even as long as to argue about it :-). >2. It gives worse results. How? Why? It just confuses programmers to have two ways of doing the same thing. The p flag to mknod(8) isn't supported either. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511180923.UAA17204>