> > Unproven and dubious at best as a claim. > > I really don't mean to be rude and pointing you to read the archives, but > the proof and the reason why claims are valid is inside there.
I've read the archive. I'm totally unconvinced by any of the fd allocation policy stuff. There are some good arguments about O_CLOEXEC and threading but not about fd allocation. > > > It does not work. What if the main application, library A and library B > > > wants to implement their own allocation strategy? > > > > Its called "discipline". I would suggest that libc contains a default > > allocator. You might also want to assign library and application ranges > > for clarity. > > That is really nice solution. Each library has to have each own allocator. Are you being deliberately stupid ? I suggested *libc* contains a default allocator > Then we'll have what, a committee that assigns fd ranges? Currently the fd ranges are assigned by a committee called POSIX based on Unix practice. > replicated all around the code that access directly the fdtables. I did > the fdmap consolidation patch, and I can tell you there are quite a few > places that access fdtables directly. This is true, but if you are worried about complexity we get back to the original posix allocator which packs them in tight and produces a most excellent spread in the general case (whacko apps like bash aside) - 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/
