Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)

[KOSAKI Motohiro]

On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ben Pfaff <blp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On 04/06/2012 02:54 AM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>>
>>> Without proc knowledge about fdtable is gathered linearly and still unreliable.
>>> With nextfd(2), even procful environments could lose several failure branches.
>>> And they can keep old dumb fd++ or smart /proc/self/fd loops for a change.
>>>
>>
>> Incidentally, if we were to create a system call for this -- which I so
>> far see no reason for -- I would make it return a select-style bitmask
>> of file descriptors in use, not a "next fd" which would require a system
>> call per iteration.
>
> It's already possible to do something a little like that with the
> existing "poll" system call:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <sys/poll.h>
>
> int
> main(void)
> {
>  enum { N_FDS = 1024 };
>  struct pollfd fds[N_FDS];

Your code has a muximum fd assumption here. that is one of that we
really want to avoid.
--
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/