Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
hga@xxxxxx
(22 Apr 2020 17:13 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
John Cowan
(22 Apr 2020 20:42 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(22 Apr 2020 20:53 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
John Cowan
(22 Apr 2020 21:29 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
hga@xxxxxx
(22 Apr 2020 23:58 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(22 Apr 2020 21:36 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(22 Apr 2020 21:43 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 03:38 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 07:02 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 07:05 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Göran Weinholt
(23 Apr 2020 10:54 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:09 UTC)
|
Per-thread umask
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:30 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:44 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:47 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:59 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 15:03 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 15:20 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 16:02 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread umask
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 16:03 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:14 UTC)
|
current directory and openat() et al
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:27 UTC)
|
Re: current directory and openat() et al
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 13:56 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:33 UTC)
|
Normalizing the current directory
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 11:39 UTC)
|
Re: Normalizing the current directory
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 11:55 UTC)
|
Re: Normalizing the current directory
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 12:10 UTC)
|
Using paths that are searchable but not completely readable
hga@xxxxxx
(23 Apr 2020 12:30 UTC)
|
Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 14:13 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 14:16 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 16:07 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 16:14 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O Sebastien Marie (23 Apr 2020 13:32 UTC)
|
Definition of working directory
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 13:51 UTC)
|
Re: Definition of working directory
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 14:07 UTC)
|
Re: Definition of working directory
Sebastien Marie
(23 Apr 2020 15:31 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 15:24 UTC)
|
Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 15:38 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 15:44 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 15:48 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
hga@xxxxxx
(23 Apr 2020 16:19 UTC)
|
Re: Separate high-level and low-level APIs
Lassi Kortela
(23 Apr 2020 16:42 UTC)
|
Re: Review of SRFI 170 through 3.2 I/O
hga@xxxxxx
(23 Apr 2020 15:41 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 16:25 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 17:26 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(23 Apr 2020 17:55 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(23 Apr 2020 18:55 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 20:12 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(23 Apr 2020 22:17 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Lassi Kortela
(24 Apr 2020 08:43 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(24 Apr 2020 11:27 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Lassi Kortela
(24 Apr 2020 11:37 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(24 Apr 2020 12:22 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(24 Apr 2020 12:28 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(26 Apr 2020 09:19 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(27 Apr 2020 22:46 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(27 Apr 2020 23:42 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(28 Apr 2020 00:42 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Shiro Kawai
(28 Apr 2020 00:56 UTC)
|
os-working-directory
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:23 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Duy Nguyen
(29 Apr 2020 09:28 UTC)
|
current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:43 UTC)
|
Windows
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:47 UTC)
|
Re: Windows
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 09:49 UTC)
|
Re: Windows
John Cowan
(29 Apr 2020 14:53 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
hga@xxxxxx
(29 Apr 2020 13:14 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 13:25 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Marc Feeley
(29 Apr 2020 13:31 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Marc Feeley
(29 Apr 2020 13:45 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 14:12 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
hga@xxxxxx
(29 Apr 2020 16:21 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
Lassi Kortela
(29 Apr 2020 16:44 UTC)
|
Re: current-umask
John Cowan
(30 Apr 2020 04:02 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
John Cowan
(30 Apr 2020 02:49 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Lassi Kortela
(30 Apr 2020 06:12 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Sebastien Marie
(30 Apr 2020 07:19 UTC)
|
Re: os-working-directory
Sebastien Marie
(30 Apr 2020 07:53 UTC)
|
Should the SRFI mandate current-directory per thread?
Lassi Kortela
(30 Apr 2020 12:14 UTC)
|
Re: Should the SRFI mandate current-directory per thread?
Sebastien Marie
(30 Apr 2020 17:00 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
hga@xxxxxx
(28 Apr 2020 01:03 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(28 Apr 2020 01:42 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen
(30 Apr 2020 07:11 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
Marc Feeley
(30 Apr 2020 11:33 UTC)
|
Re: Per-thread working directory and umask proposal
John Cowan
(23 Apr 2020 18:38 UTC)
|
On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:53:47PM +0200, Göran Weinholt wrote: > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:02:16AM +0300, Lassi Kortela wrote: > > > Could we simply add some prose to SRFI 170 permitting > > > implementations to > > > translate relative pathnames per the thread CWD before passing them to > > > the syscalls? > > > > > > It seems to me that would break portability, but I can't quite put my > > > finger on why. > > > > The kernel translates relative pathnames to absolute ones anyway. It > > shouldn't be a problem if we translate one step earlier, on the Scheme side. > > I'd like if it were possible to keep a current working directory per > thread, fiber or whatever. Are you aware of the *at() syscalls? From > the Linux openat(2) manpage: > > Second, openat() allows the implementation of a per-thread > "current working directory", via file descriptor(s) maintained > by the application. (This functionality can also be obtained > by tricks based on the use of /proc/self/fd/dirfd, but less > efficiently.) > > These types of syscalls are also in POSIX-1.2008, AFAICT. > > I suspect that if the current working directory is specified in terms > of parameter-like semantics then it should be possible to make use of > openat() etc behind the scenes, while implementors who can't use such > syscalls can still have a current working directory parameter that is > more or less just a string (plus a check to see that the new directory > exists, I guess). I am a bit shared. I understand that having proper "current working directory" based on parameter-like semantic, and having it per thread could be a good thing. But SRFI 170 is about "POSIX API", and I would expect the standard behaviour found in C world, where getcwd() is a per-process property (but I didn't found formal definition of cwd as process property in Posix definition). At minima, the direct reference about getcwd() and chdir() should be avoided, and the difference with them properly documented. The same reasoning could be done about umask (but here, Posix is explicitly saying that it is a property of the process). Thanks. -- Sebastien Marie