Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 14:18:21 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com
Subject: Re: /dev/zero support
In-Reply-To: <199910142216.SAA04636@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991017141746.25053P-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, DJ Delorie wrote:

> I definitely want to avoid adding hooks in libc for things that can be
> done with fsexts.  The exceptions so far are for obviously common
> things, like /dev/null and a few other renames.

With some simple changes to FSEXT, it can be made much friendlier to
such features.  All we need is a reliable way to control the order of
invocation of FSEXT handlers at run time, and perhaps also to arrange
for a return value that will cause libc to call the previous handler
(i.e., a way to chain to the previous handler that hooked the same
service/handle).

Any takers?