Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:12:20 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: The naming of at()s is a difficult matter |
| |
Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>>>Do you have a better proposal for naming the interfaces? >>> >>>chownfn maybe. (fd + name) >> >>I am not shure if this would match the rules from the Opengroup. >>Solaris has these interfaces since at least 5 years. > > This is not the cdrecord thread so Solaris is a no-go in this very one. >
FWIW, I think the -at() suffix is just fine, and well established by now (yes, there is shmat, but the SysV shared memory interfaces are bizarre to begin with -- hence POSIX shared memory which has real names.)
What I object to is the random, meaningless and misleading application of the f- suffix.
-hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |