Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1

[Alan Cox]

> I don't think this is a viable approach because it is not about the
> range.  People can and do select arbitrary values for those types.
> Until a value is officially recognized and registered it is in fact best
> to choose a (possibly large) random value to not conflict with anything
> else.  Who can guarantee that whatever bit is chosen for SOCK_CLOEXEC
> isn't already used by someone?

There are only a small number of valid socket types recognized by POSIX
plus a few BSD plus a few Linux ones so Linux can happily assign the
upper bits for a different purpose.

> Add to this that it's not a complete solution (no such hack possible for
> accept) and I think using a new interface is cleaner(tm).

Every other property of a socket via accept() is inherited from the
parent. Making one property different would be bizarre and ugly.

Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/