Felix von Leitner wrote: > I cheated. I was only talking about open(). > close() is of course more expensive then. > > Other than that: where does the requirement come from? > Can't we just use a free list where we prepend closed fds and always use > the first one on open()? That would even increase spatial locality and > be good for the CPU caches. You would need to use a new open() flag: O_ANYFD. The requirement comes from this like this: close (0); close (1); close (2); open ("/dev/console", O_RDWR); dup (); dup (); -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: [patch] sendpath() support, 2.... dean gaudet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? dean gaudet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Albert D. Cahalan
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Felix von Leitner
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Peter Samuelson
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Felix von Leitner
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jamie Lokier
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Felix von Leitner
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David L. Parsley
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jakub Jelinek
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David L. Parsley
- RE: Is sendfile all that sexy? Laramie Leavitt
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? dean gaudet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Sasi Peter
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? James Sutherland
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Anton Blanchard
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Sasi Peter