[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New procfs implementation
From: |
Jeremie Koenig |
Subject: |
Re: New procfs implementation |
Date: |
Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:47:58 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
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> ?
--
Jeremie Koenig <jk@jk.fr.eu.org>
http://jk.fr.eu.org