Re: [PATCH] paccept, socket, socketpair w/flags

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...>, Alan Cox <alan@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <netdev@...>, <akpm@...>, <torvalds@...>
Date: Monday, April 28, 2008 - 5:52 am

[CC+=Alan Cox]

On 4/27/08, Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com> wrote:

Ulrich,

This is ugly.  Why invent a diffent set of flags here.  I agree with
your earlier statement that new syscalls would be cleaner.  If, as
seems to be the case, we are going to create new syscalls for

eventfd()
signalfd()
accept()
dup2()
epoll_create()
pipe()
inotify_init()
(I've not seen those last two yet, but I assume you are going to do them.)

then *please* let's go the hwole way cleanly, and have new syscalls
also for socketpair() and socket(), and make all of the new syscalls
use the same flags.  Creating a different set of flags just to avoid a
couple of extra sycalls is ugly.  (You yourself asserted similar in
saying that dup3() is better than adding an extra flag to fcntl(), and
I don't disagree.)

Cheers,

Michael
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] paccept, socket, socketpair w/flags, Ulrich Drepper, (Sat Apr 26, 6:24 pm)
Re: [PATCH] paccept, socket, socketpair w/flags, Michael Kerrisk, (Mon Apr 28, 5:52 am)
Re: [PATCH] paccept, socket, socketpair w/flags, Ulrich Drepper, (Mon Apr 28, 10:13 am)
Re: [PATCH] paccept, socket, socketpair w/flags, Michael Kerrisk, (Mon Apr 28, 10:51 am)
Re: [PATCH] paccept, socket, socketpair w/flags, Ulrich Drepper, (Mon Apr 28, 11:13 am)
Re: [PATCH] paccept, socket, socketpair w/flags, Michael Kerrisk, (Mon Apr 28, 11:29 am)