On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:33:23AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Dumb thought: would it make sense to add an O_CAREFUL flag to open(), to > disable side effects? It seems that a number of devices have this issue > and one have to jump through weird hoops to configure them. Obviously, > a file descriptor obtained with O_CAREFUL may not be fully functional, > at the device driver's option. > > For a conventional file, directory, or block device O_CAREFUL is a > no-op. What about door locking on block devices? That might be an undesirable side effect in some circumstances, so you might not want it to be a no-op on blockdevs. > For ttys it would typically behave similar to O_NONBLOCK > followed immediately by a fcntl to clear the nonblock flag. What about, eg, raising DTR and RTS ? You'd want to avoid raising those if you're not actually going to be using the port. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
