On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 07:25:31 -0700 Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't say the current proposed code is the answer but iff > Davide's unified code does not perform worse than the current code I > don't see the harm since, for instance, extending socket() is in any > case necessary. I mentioned that close_on_exit must be set on open, > else leaks are risked. This will come naturally with a flags parameter > which already takes O_NONSEQFD. Yes, and for completeness : accept2(int fd, ...) pipe2(int *fds, int oflags); eventfd2(int count, int oflags); signalfd2(int ufd, sigset_t __user *user_mask, size_t sizemask, int oflags); timerfd2(int ufd, int clockid, int flags,const struct itimerspec __user *utmr, int oflags) ... We probably should name those with a better sufix than "2", it is ugly. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
