From owner-freebsd-current Tue Dec 24 4:30:57 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B9C37B401; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:30:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from salmon.maths.tcd.ie (salmon.maths.tcd.ie [134.226.81.11]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 892A843EE5; Tue, 24 Dec 2002 04:30:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie) Received: from walton.maths.tcd.ie by salmon.maths.tcd.ie with SMTP id ; 24 Dec 2002 12:30:54 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:30:54 +0000 From: David Malone To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: revoke(2) redux... Message-ID: <20021224123053.GA79469@walton.maths.tcd.ie> References: <30917.1040730025@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <30917.1040730025@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 12:40:25PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > Wouldn't it in fact make much more sense if revoke(2) was defined as > > int revoke(int fd); /* kick everybody else off */ > > and the code above would look like: An O_REVOKE flag to open might be neater? David. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message