Date: Sat, 18 Nov 1995 20:23:52 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: bde@zeta.org.au, grog@lemis.de Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: linux' mknod and named pipes. Message-ID: <199511180923.UAA17204@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >Is there any good reason why we shouldn't modify mknod to make a fifo
>> >when called with the appropriate parameters?
>>
>> The same reason we shouldn't modify thousands of other system calls to be
>> compatible with thousands of other systems: it takes longer and gives
>> worse results.
>I think that bears discussion.
>1. It takes longer:
>--- vfs_syscalls.c 1995/11/14 09:19:16 1.40
>+++ vfs_syscalls.c 1995/11/18 08:45:43
>@@ -757,6 +757,13 @@
> int error;
> struct nameidata nd;
>
>+ if (ISFIFO (uap->mode))
>+ {
>+ struct mkfifo_args args;
>+ args.path = uap->path;
>+ args.mode = uap->mode;
>+ return mkfifo (p, args);
>+ }
> error = suser(p->p_ucred, &p->p_acflag);
> if (error)
> return (error);
> OK, I haven't tested this, but it's got to be something like it.
> In the normal case, there's a single 'if' involved.
It takes longer to write, document, commit and test. Perhaps even as
long as to argue about it :-).
>2. It gives worse results. How? Why?
It just confuses programmers to have two ways of doing the same thing.
The p flag to mknod(8) isn't supported either.
Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511180923.UAA17204>