Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 07:18:43AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper (drepper@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> 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?

type argument is limited to SOCK_MAX, higher half of the word can be
used for flags. It is much cleaner than implementing socket4() for the
single bit.

> 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).

It can inherit flags from parent by default.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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/