Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 23:31:45 +0100 From: Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> To: Jonathan Anderson <jonathan@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <bjk@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removal of kern_xxx() no-at variants. Message-ID: <20141112223144.GA90037@stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <5463C39C.2010204@FreeBSD.org> References: <20141112132451.GM17068@kib.kiev.ua> <201411121014.04482.jhb@freebsd.org> <alpine.GSO.1.10.1411121449340.27826@multics.mit.edu> <5463C39C.2010204@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:01:24PM -0330, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> A thought:
> If we're only going to have one of {kern_open,kern_openat}, might it
> make sense to keep the shorter name rather than the longer one?
> kern_openat as a name seems meaningful to me only if we're trying to
> disambiguate it from an also-existent-but-different-meaning kern_open.
The name kern_openat makes sense in that the functionality is like the
openat() system call.
--
Jilles Tjoelker
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141112223144.GA90037>