[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080424164932.GB22233@2ka.mipt.ru>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:49:32 +0400
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 07:18:43AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper (drepper@...hat.com) wrote:
> I don't think this is a viable approach because it is not about the
> range. People can and do select arbitrary values for those types.
> Until a value is officially recognized and registered it is in fact best
> to choose a (possibly large) random value to not conflict with anything
> else. Who can guarantee that whatever bit is chosen for SOCK_CLOEXEC
> isn't already used by someone?
type argument is limited to SOCK_MAX, higher half of the word can be
used for flags. It is much cleaner than implementing socket4() for the
single bit.
> Add to this that it's not a complete solution (no such hack possible for
> accept) and I think using a new interface is cleaner(tm).
It can inherit flags from parent by default.
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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