[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New procfs implementation
|
From: |
Samuel Thibault |
|
Subject: |
Re: New procfs implementation |
|
Date: |
Sun, 5 Sep 2010 10:11:31 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 |
Jeremie Koenig, le Sat 04 Sep 2010 17:47:58 +0200, a écrit :
> On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 05:10:04PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Jeremie Koenig, le Sat 04 Sep 2010 01:07:21 +0200, a écrit :
> > > How about "--default-owner" or "--default-uid" ?
> >
> > "default" could imply that it's used for much more cases than just this
> > one. What about "no-owner"?
>
> Maybe "not-owned-uid" or "notowned-uid", in order to be consistent with
> PI_NOTOWNED from <hurd/hurd_types.h> ?
This makes sense, yes.
Samuel