[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080512211056.16e07167.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 21:10:56 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davidel@...ilserver.org, mtk.manpages@...il.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] flag parameters: paccept
On Tue, 6 May 2008 17:18:07 -0400 Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com> wrote:
> This patch is by far the most complex in the series. It adds a new syscall
> paccept. This syscall differs from accept in that it adds (at the userlevel)
> two additional parameters:
>
> - a signal mask
> - a flags value
>
> The flags parameter can be used to set flag like SOCK_CLOEXEC. This is
> imlpemented here as well. Some people argued that this is a property
> which should be inherited from the file desriptor for the server but
> this is against POSIX. Additionally, we really want the signal mask
> parameter as well (similar to pselect, ppoll, etc). So an interface
> change in inevitable.
>
> The flag value is the same as for socket and socketpair. I think
> diverging here will only create confusion. Similar to the filesystem
> interfaces where the use of the O_* constants differs, it is acceptable
> here.
>
> The signal mask is handled as for pselect etc. The mask is temporarily
> installed for the thread and removed before the call returns. I modeled
> the code after pselect. If there is a problem it's likely also in
> pselect.
>
> For architectures which use socketcall I maintained this interface
> instead of adding a system call. The symmetry shouldn't be broken.
>
> The following test must be adjusted for architectures other than x86 and
> x86-64 and in case the syscall numbers changed.
Am getting moderately bored of these patches :(
arm exploded thusly:
net/socket.c: In function `sys_paccept':
net/socket.c:1534: error: implicit declaration of function `set_restore_sigmask'
because afacit arm doesn't implement set_restore_sigmask() and nor does
it need to, because it doesn't set HAVE_SET_RESTORE_SIGMASK.
I will continue to fumble along in the rc2-mm1 direction. Fixes against that
kernel would suit, thanks.
--
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