[ Delayed response - mailserver was dead. ] On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:12:17 -0400, jim owens wrote: > > >Because if it is, I would call that behaviour rather confusing. A > >system call that behaves differently depending on who calls it - or > >on whether the binary is installed suid root - is something I would like > >to avoid. > > Avoiding that just gives us other confusing operations unless > you have a really good alternative. > > This design is very elegant, I wish I had thought of it :) > > It passes the test that 99% of the time for any user (including > root), "it just works the way I want it to". In my experience, > root and setuid programs really don't want to take ownership, > they want to replicate it. > > The behavior matches "cp -p" or "tar -x" and yes those are not > system calls but so what. What matters is the documentation is > clear about what happens and the most useful result occurs. If what you want is copyfile(2), this is a poor design because it usually does what you want and sometimes doesn't. If what you want is reflink(2), this may be acceptable. Not sure. I personally would prefer to get -EPERM or something instead of altered behaviour. So you can count me in with the people that propose two seperate system calls. Jörn -- They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Copernicus. They laughed at Columbus. But remember, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- unknown -- 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
