[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070610161616.301b9680@the-village.bc.nu>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:16:16 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2
> > and there's absolutely nothing wrong with this kind of setup, even if you
> > could obviously have done it other ways too (ie by using "dup2()" instead
> > of "close + open"),
> >
>
> This kind of setup was OK 25 years ago, before multithreading era.
> You cannot reasonably expect it to work in a multithreaded program.
Why not.
When execution begins which is the normal point you do this then you've
got one thread. If you need to do this from a thread after that point
posix provides threaded applications with locking.
Not much else works in a threaded app if you get the locking wrong, and
that is considered the authors job. Why is fd allocation different ?
-
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