[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47430871.7000306@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:16:49 -0800
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: dean gaudet <dean@...tic.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] sys_indirect system call
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
dean gaudet wrote:
> as an application writer how do i access accept(2) with FD_CLOEXEC
> functionality? will glibc expose an accept2() with a flags param?
Not yet decided. There is the alternative to extend the accept()
interface to have both interfaces:
int accept(int, struct sockaddr *, socklen_t *);
and
int accept(int, struct sockaddr *, socklen_t *, int);
We can do this with type safety even in C nowadays.
> if so... why don't we just have an accept2() syscall?
If you read the mails of my first submission you'll find that I
explained this. I talked to Andrew and he favored new syscalls. But
then I talked to Linus and he favored this approach. Probably
especially because it can be used for syslets as well. And it is less
code and data than introducing new syscalls.
- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHQwhx2ijCOnn/RHQRAnezAKCkFmGwlwDZjpfKTRSUN4yLIeGTkACgtMK/
OcHdIaR8wbp848D3GU2iNYQ=
=nTu9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
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