[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705301443340.6272@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Syslets, Threadlets, generic AIO support, v6
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > And then the semantics: do these descriptors should show up in
> > /proc/self/fd? Are there separate directories for each namespace? Do
> > they count against the rlimit?
>
> Oh, absolutely. The'd be real fd's in every way. People could use them
> 100% equivalently (and concurrently) with the traditional ones. The whole,
> and the _only_ point, would be that it breaks the legacy guarantees of a
> dense fd space.
>
> Most apps don't actually *need* that dense fd space in any case. But by
> defaulting to it, we wouldn't break those (few) apps that actually depend
> on it.
I agree. What would be a good interface to allocate fds in such area? We
don't want to replicate syscalls, so maybe a special new dup function?
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists