On Thu, 1 Aug 2013 01:42:53 -0700 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry for being a bit late to the game, but.. > > Why is the useful tmpfile functionality multiplexed over open when it > has very different semantics from a normal open? > > In addition to the flag problems already discussed to death it also just > leads to splattering of the code in the implementaiton, given that > path_openat branches out really early in path_openat. > > What's the problem with a clear single purpose tmpfile() system call? Agreed. A new syscall for this seems like it would be a lot cleaner. I mentioned that to Al via IRC when he first showed me these patches but he didn't like the idea (I don't recall his rationale though). I probably should have followed that up with an email to the mailing list, but the first public mention of it was the pull request... -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
