[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46685508.2070805@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 20:57:12 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
CC: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2
Davide Libenzi a écrit :
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> accept2(int fd, ...)
>
> I don't see any reason to not have it inherit the non-sequential
> characteristics of "fd".
>
>
>
>> pipe2(int *fds, int oflags);
>
> I think pipe+sys_nonseqfd should be OK for those.
yes, but O_CLOEXEC/O_CLOFORK ?
I was refering to Uli wanting to close races on multi-threading apps doing a
fork() while a thread is doing :
fd = open()
<---- race here if another thread does a fork() ---->
fcntl( CLOEXEC)
>
>
>
>> eventfd2(int count, int oflags);
>> signalfd2(int ufd, sigset_t __user *user_mask, size_t sizemask, int oflags);
>> timerfd2(int ufd, int clockid, int flags,const struct itimerspec __user *utmr, int oflags) ...
>
> Those I think we're still in time to change the interface. No?
> Even if not, those are not perf-critical, so I think that
> syscall+sys_nonseqfd is still fine.
Same point here, non a nonseqfd problem.
-
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