Re: dup2() vs dup3() inconsistency when

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 07:04 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
[....]
> Well, as long as we are fixing the dup3() interface in the way that Al
> and Ulrich have suggested, what about another fix:
> 
> give an error if newfd is already open, thus forcing the user to do an
> explicit close
> 
> ?
> 
> This silent close in dup2() is an implementation blemish.  Why not eliminate it?

Apart from the usual "do not break almost all existing apps" killer
reason: The alternative is that people will simply add a "close(newfd)"
everytime before "dup2(oldfd,newfd)" since close() is harmless on a
non-open fd.

	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/