From: Tim Hockin <thockin@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:53:43 -0700
The standard says negative fd's are ignored. We get that right. What we
are left with is an overly paranoid check against max_fds. This check
should go away. You should be able to pass in up to your rlimit fds, and
let negative ones (holes or tails) be ignored.
I am saying there is no problem.
In both cases, for a properly written application we ignore the
invalid fds. The behavior is identical both before and after
your change, so there is no reason to make it.
Later,
David S. Miller
davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 15 2001 - 21:00:55 EST