[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802261125180.27243@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:31:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
cc: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@...ian.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Marc Lehmann <schmorp@...morp.de>,
David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>
Subject: Re: epoll and shared fd's
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Okay -- I'll look at it some more. I am however loathe to drop the
> term open file description, because POSIX uses, as well as a number of
> other Linux man pages by now.
Heh, POSIX. Now doesn't take a genius to see that "file description" and
"file descriptor" looks amazingly similar, does it? :)
> > That'd mean placing an eventpoll custom hook into sys_close(). Looks
> > very bad to me, and probably will look even worse to other kernel
> > folks. Is not much a performance issue (a check to see if a file* is
> > an eventpoll file is as easy as comparing the f_op pointer), but a
> > design/style issue.
>
> Oh -- I wasn't suggesting we could make the change now -- it would
> break the ABI and all that. I was just wondering why the decision
> wasn't made to do it the other way to begin with. The existing
> semantics are somewhat couterintuitive, and potentially interact
> libraries that do private manipulations with file descriptors.
For the same reason that a custom hook in sys_close wouldn't have passed
the radar ;)
As far as problems with libraries doing tricks with fds, that's an issue
that goes beyond epoll.
- Davide
--
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