Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:49:32 +0400 | From | Evgeniy Polyakov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1 |
| |
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 07:18:43AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper (drepper@redhat.com) wrote: > I don't think this is a viable approach because it is not about the > range. People can and do select arbitrary values for those types. > Until a value is officially recognized and registered it is in fact best > to choose a (possibly large) random value to not conflict with anything > else. Who can guarantee that whatever bit is chosen for SOCK_CLOEXEC > isn't already used by someone?
type argument is limited to SOCK_MAX, higher half of the word can be used for flags. It is much cleaner than implementing socket4() for the single bit.
> Add to this that it's not a complete solution (no such hack possible for > accept) and I think using a new interface is cleaner(tm).
It can inherit flags from parent by default.
-- Evgeniy Polyakov
| |