Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751156AbWHGIRw (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 04:17:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751159AbWHGIRw (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 04:17:52 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20]:52383 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751158AbWHGIRv (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2006 04:17:51 -0400 X-Authenticated: #271361 Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:17:45 +0200 From: Edgar Toernig To: Pavel Machek Cc: Pekka J Enberg , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, tytso@mit.edu, tigran@veritas.com Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] revoke/frevoke system calls V2 Message-Id: <20060807101745.61f21826.froese@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <20060805122936.GC5417@ucw.cz> References: <20060805122936.GC5417@ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 615 Lines: 17 Pavel Machek wrote: > > > This patch implements the revoke(2) and frevoke(2) system calls for > > all types of files. The operation is done in passes: first we replace > > > Do we need revoke()? open()+frevoke() should be fast enough, no? Why do we need [f]revoke at all? As it doesn't implement the BSD semantic I can't see why it's better than fuser -k. Ciao, ET. - 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/