Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:23:00 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2) |
| |
On 04/06/2012 02:54 AM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > > Without proc knowledge about fdtable is gathered linearly and still unreliable. > With nextfd(2), even procful environments could lose several failure branches. > And they can keep old dumb fd++ or smart /proc/self/fd loops for a change. >
Incidentally, if we were to create a system call for this -- which I so far see no reason for -- I would make it return a select-style bitmask of file descriptors in use, not a "next fd" which would require a system call per iteration.
-hpa
-- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
| |