[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F85C640.3060608@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:58:24 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
CC: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
drepper@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)
On 04/10/2012 05:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> I know the reason. fcntl(F_NEXT) is one of a proposal of next SUS enhancement.
>
> http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=149
>
> nextfd() has a semantics of F_NEXT.
>
> Next, why shoundn't we implement fcntl(F_NEXT) in our kernel? I think
> we have two reason.
>
> 1) As linus pointed out, linux specific "flags" argument may be useful.
> 2) The name of F_NEXT is not fixed yet. another url of the austin says
> it is FD_NEXT.
> So, we can't choose right name yet. Moreover, A meanings of 3rd
> argument of F_NEXT
> haven't been fixed.
>
But it still has the same braindamage: one system call per loop
invocation, and we can do better. I would much rather see fdwalk() in SUS.
-hpa
--
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