Re: Does it make sense to define a constant for openat and such that is guaranteed not to be used for special purposes later on?

On Jul 1, 2014 7:19 PM, "Steven Stewart-Gallus"
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I like this.  Want to submit a patch?

--Andy

Sure I'd love to patch the documentation. So I can just submit a man pages patch
for this and I don't have to coordinate with GLibc (or other liibcs like Musl)
for this or modify any in kernel tree documentation?

I'd suggest adding it to whatever file defines AT_FDCWD.

--Andy