[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141205133742.4812db96@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 13:37:42 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Alex Dubov <alex.dubov@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alex Dubov <oakad@...oo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: introduce sendfd() syscall
On Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:41:44 +0100
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 09:17:37AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Come on guys, get a cup of coffee and relax a bit...
>
> I am relaxed, especially after I had a good laugh reading this:
>
> On a less related note, I hope you will agree that the simpler
> mechanism for this very in-demand feature is long overdue on Linux
> (every man and his dog are passing fds around these days).
>
> Really, in years and years of unix programming, I have not yet felt
> the need to pass a file descriptor. Thats goes double for my dogs.
Its underused in part because you need a pointy hat to do it in Unix, but
it's a very common model elsewhere.
Whether you need the syscall or just to write sendfd() acceptfd() in
terms of AF_UNIX sockets in a library and bury the icky bits is another
question. I think the reality is you'd probably end up doing the library
*anyway* to deal with the fact it'll be 5 or more years before sendfd
percolated everywhere even if it was merged today.
Alan
--
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