Re: openat/fstatat functions implementation

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

Adam Hamsik <haaaad%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
> > Here is last version of openat/fstatat diff I have written atf tests  
> > for it and tested my patch by doing build(checks namei) and zfs 
> > (checks openat/fstatat) + atf tests. Both cases were working. Can  
> > put these syscalls in ?
> 
> As usual I forgot to attach patch file here is it

I still think that we should not start spreading *at() syscalls, but rather
have one syscall to handle them.  While it is pointless to dholland, I would
say it is a better structure and would probably reduce some code duplication.

-- 
Mindaugas