>> Greg, file descriptors are not associated with pathnames.  There is
>> no "proper directory entry".
> How is it that suddenly you have absolutely no imagination at all?
> File descriptors are associated with files.
> Filenames are associated with files.

Yes.  Therefore, a file descriptor can in principle be mapped to a set
of pathnames.  (And a pathname can in principle be mapped to a set of
file descriptors.)

You are trying to add a way to go from a file descriptor to one
particular member of that set of pathnames.  (And then do something
with it, but the hard part is that mapping.  Depending on which message
I read, either you're willing to error out unless the set has only one
element, or you want a rather ill-defined member of the set, one
somehow related to how the file descriptor was obtained.)

This is possible to do.  It is also a major philosophical shift, with
the corresponding design shift that implies.  It may be an interesting
thing to consider when designing a new OS; it is of no particular value
for an existing one with an existing commitment to the present design
(and the philosophy behind it).

Hint: this list is about the latter.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B