Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 17:19:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> Cc: Eric Lemar <eric.lemar@isilon.com>, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: *at family of syscalls in FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0706071717580.28966@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20070607210313.GA603@freebsd.org> References: <20070604162430.GA76813@freebsd.org> <896DB1FBFFD5A145833D9DA08CA12A85051A7F@seaxch07.desktop.isilon.com> <20070606074429.GA42032@freebsd.org> <4666F0FB.8020101@FreeBSD.org> <20070607070455.GA71012@freebsd.org> <896DB1FBFFD5A145833D9DA08CA12A85051A84@seaxch07.desktop.isilon.com> <20070607210313.GA603@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Roman Divacky wrote: > > now we need some strong opinion what to do. can anyone step up and tell "do this and > that"? I am willing to adjust my patch with either the wrapping idea and/or the flags thing. > > I just need someone to tell me what is the preferred way. Have you verified that these functions (the way you have named and implemented them) conform to the draft POSIX spec? -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0706071717580.28966>