Felix von Leitner wrote: > > close (0); > > close (1); > > close (2); > > open ("/dev/console", O_RDWR); > > dup (); > > dup (); > > So it's not actually part of POSIX, it's just to get around fixing > legacy code? ;-) This makes me wonder... If the kernel only kept a queue of the three smallest unused fd's, and when the queue emptied handed out whatever it liked, how many things would break? I suspect this would cover a lot of bases... <dons flameproof underwear> regards, David -- David L. Parsley Network Administrator Roanoke College - 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: 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
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Anton Blanchard
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David S. Miller