d/freebsd-nq
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Prefer "to be modified" over "to be opened for writing".

Browse Source 
This is quite tricky situation, because we allow to open a file with
O_RDONLY|O_TRUNC. O_TRUNC modifies a file, but we actually don't open
it for writing. EISDIR is also returned when we try to open a directory
O_RDONLY|O_TRUNC, which is correct.
POSIX says that "The result of using O_TRUNC with O_RDONLY is undefined.",
we choose to accept it (Solaris did the same), that's why "to be modified"
seems more accurate to me.
This commit is contained in:
Pawel Jakub Dawidek 2007-01-07 17:32:16 +00:00
parent d19e3538ae
commit 6a8780971a
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
lib/libc/sys/open.2
View File

@ -238,7 +238,7 @@ does not permit writing.
Too many symbolic links were encountered in translating the pathname.
.It Bq Er EISDIR
The named file is a directory, and the arguments specify
it is to be opened for writing.
it is to be modified.
.It Bq Er EROFS
The named file resides on a read-only file system,
and the file is to be modified.