Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 04/10/2012 05:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> 
> I know the reason. fcntl(F_NEXT) is one of a proposal of next SUS enhancement.
> 
>   http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=149
> 
> nextfd() has a semantics of F_NEXT.
> 
> Next, why shoundn't we implement fcntl(F_NEXT) in our kernel? I think
> we have two reason.
> 
> 1) As linus pointed out, linux specific "flags" argument may be useful.
> 2) The name of F_NEXT is not fixed yet. another url of the austin says
> it is FD_NEXT.
>      So, we can't choose right name yet. Moreover, A meanings of 3rd
> argument of F_NEXT
>      haven't been fixed.
> 

But it still has the same braindamage: one system call per loop
invocation, and we can do better.  I would much rather see fdwalk() in SUS.

	-hpa

--
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/