Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<3A8EB95C.548C1990@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:48:12 +0000
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.17 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: O_TEMPORARY
References:	<3A8C7B40 DOT 5144 DOT 6753FD AT localhost> (snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com) <3A8D7266 DOT 19805 DOT 561972 AT localhost>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

"Mark E." wrote:
> The other case of one file opened twice with O_TEMPORARY can definitely
> be handled as if it were a 'dup' call. But I'm not sure yet what should
> be done about this case, but it could be done the same way. The only
> flaw I see is if the file is opened first without O_TEMPORARY, the
> second open with O_TEMPORARY won't be able to find out about the first
> one.
> 
> Ideas on what to do here and why are definitely welcome.

If you have opened a file without O_TEMPORARY, then I don't think that
subsequent opens of that file should be able to make it temporary. I think
it should generate an error like EPERM - a "no permission to change file
attributes" error.

Or is this a question on how to implement such a feature? (I admit I
haven't been following the code to implement O_TEMPORARY closely.)

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com> http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/ 

"The soul is the mirror of an indestructible universe."
--- Gottfried W. Leibniz

- Raw text -