[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47014224.4030204@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:53:24 +0400
From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC implementation
Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 11:07:15AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> Also attached is ndelaytest.c which can be used to test that
>> send(MSG_DONTWAIT) indeed is failing with EAGAIN if write would block
>> and that other processes never see O_NONBLOCK set.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> Never send patches during or approaching hangover?
> * it's on a bunch of cyclic lists. Have its neighbor
> go away while you are doing all that crap => boom
> * there's that thing call current position... It gets buggered.
> * overwriting it while another task might be in the middle of
> syscall involving it => boom
> * non-cooperative tasks reading *in* *parallel* from the same
> opened file are going to have a lot more serious problems than agreeing
> on O_NONBLOCK anyway, so I really don't understand what the hell is that for.
Good summary... ;)
But for the last part of the last item - sometimes, definitely more than
once, I wondered why there's no equivalent to recv(MSG_DONTWAIT) for
non-sockets -- why for sockets it's as simple as adding an option (a
single bit), while for all the rest it requires two fcntl calls...
Sometimes it's handy. ;)
Not that I'm arguing for or against such a feature anyway..
/mjt
-
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