Hello, Sergey Bugaev, le sam. 10 juin 2023 00:13:22 +0300, a ecrit: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 9:37 PM Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > > You could change the documentation so that it now says that flags that > > imply O_IGNORE_CTTY are also meaningful. That should be fine. > > Perhaps... but there's another reason I don't particularly like the > idea of doing it on that level. > > _hurd_port2fd () and _hurd_intern_fd () is something that you call > once you already have an io port. O_CREAT and O_DIRECTORY and the rest > are the flags that impact how you look it up. _hurd_port2fd would have > to second-guess "this io port is said to have been opened with O_CREAT > | O_EXCL, so it can't be a ctty". It'd be better to have the caller > (open) -- that "can see" both looking the port up and interning it -- > implement this bit of logic. Not that this matters for anything, > because it would still behave the same way no matter which level we > implement it at; but it seems more appropriate to me to implement it > at that level. > > Samuel, what do you think?
It looks better to me to add a shared helper that adds O_IGNORE_CTTY whenever the flags contain something that implies it. Callers of _hurd_intern_fd / _hurd_port2fd can then easily use it (or even just always pass O_IGNORE_CTTY, when creating a socket for instance). Samuel
