From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin C.Atkins To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Novice question - run as other Message-Id: <20040318095116.673c3fcc.martin@parvat.com> In-Reply-To: <200403171800.i2HI0jtq086906@adat.davidashen.net> References: <200403171800.i2HI0jtq086906@adat.davidashen.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 09:51:16 +0530 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3603ef92-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:00:45 +0400 (AMT) David Tolpin wrote: > A more general conclusion is that for tasks where writing to > or reading from files reflects or affects process space, and not > name space, rc is not suitable and C code must be written. Is it the process that writes to the device that gets altered, or the process that opens the device? I suspect the former, but why is it not the second? If it was the second, then rc could probably be used, but what else wouldn't work, or would break? Was the choice one of expediency, or is there a real semantic advantage to the first choice? Martin -- Martin C. Atkins martin@parvat.com Parvat Infotech Private Limited http://www.parvat.com{/,/martin}