User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Posted Sep 9, 2009 16:04 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Parent article: POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Similarly, there is relatively little debate about refusing to conform to some of the more brain-dead POSIX details, such as the aforementioned directory hard link feature.
Thats decidedly optional, isn't it? So failing link() on directories isn't a conformance violation anyway.

(If it wasn't for NFS, I suspect a much wider violation would be failure to suppport the seekdir()/telldir() horror show.)


(Log in to post comments)

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Posted Sep 18, 2009 21:02 UTC (Fri) by jch (guest, #51929) [Link]

> Thats decidedly optional, isn't it? So failing link() on directories isn't a conformance violation anyway.

Indeed. According to the 2001 edition:

> Upon successful completion, link() shall mark for update the st_ctime field of the file. Also, the st_ctime and st_mtime fields of the direc-tory that contains the new entry shall be marked for update.

POSIX v. reality: A position on O_PONIES

Posted Sep 20, 2009 19:47 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Um, I think you copied the wrong section of the standard ;) Also 2001 is
kind of out of date now.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds