[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070610024044.GB21478@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:40:44 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
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
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 03:27:43PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> SCENARIO 1:
>
> Program Thread: Library Thread:
> fd = socket(AF_*, SOCK_*, 0);
> fork();
> int x = FD_CLOEXEC;
> fcntl(fd, F_SETFD, &x);
BTW, regardless of anything else, in such situation this "library
thread" would be better off by just having independent descriptors.
We _can_ do that just fine.
That is, if library code using such stuff would be OK with being a thread.
Any specific examples one way or another?
-
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