[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:09:31 +0200
From: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...mix.at>
To: mtk.manpages@...il.com
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: dup2() vs dup3() inconsistency when
On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 07:04 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
[....]
> Well, as long as we are fixing the dup3() interface in the way that Al
> and Ulrich have suggested, what about another fix:
>
> give an error if newfd is already open, thus forcing the user to do an
> explicit close
>
> ?
>
> This silent close in dup2() is an implementation blemish. Why not eliminate it?
Apart from the usual "do not break almost all existing apps" killer
reason: The alternative is that people will simply add a "close(newfd)"
everytime before "dup2(oldfd,newfd)" since close() is harmless on a
non-open fd.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
--
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