Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Use O_IGNORE_CTTY where appropriate

On 6/13/23 03:54, Sergey Bugaev wrote: "Do not recognize the named file as the controlling terminal, even if it refers to the process’s existing controlling terminal device. Operations on the new file descriptor will never induce job control signals." This is an opportunity to improve the docs!

[PATCH hurd] Check for file_utimens since that's the correct RPC for changing access/modification times

libtrivfs/nfsd/fakeroot can now make the call to the underlying translators. --- configure.ac | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index 44aa69d7..452fe1fd 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ AC_CHECK_FUNCS(fil

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] include/fcntl.h: Define O_IGNORE_CTTY

On 13/06/23 06:42, Sergey Bugaev wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 9:56 PM Adhemerval Zanella Netto > wrote: >>> Do you think the Linux port should define O_IGNORE_CTTY to O_NOCTTY >>> and not to 0? >> >> Hurd O_IGNORE_CTTY and Linux O_NOCTTY do not have the *exactly* semantic, >> so

Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] include/fcntl.h: Define O_IGNORE_CTTY

Hello, On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 9:56 PM Adhemerval Zanella Netto wrote: > > Do you think the Linux port should define O_IGNORE_CTTY to O_NOCTTY > > and not to 0? > > Hurd O_IGNORE_CTTY and Linux O_NOCTTY do not have the *exactly* semantic, > so I think we should avoid change the internal open flag

Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Use O_IGNORE_CTTY where appropriate

Hello, On Sun, Jun 11, 2023 at 7:54 AM Paul Eggert wrote: > OK, I'm starting to see the distinction now. So you did misunderstand it! That means not only is the explanation in the glibc manual (reproduced below) unclear, but my previous attempts to describe it and its differences to O_NOCTTY wer