Re: PROPOSAL: extend pipe() to support NULL argument.

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Changli Gao a Ãcrit :

> Yea, in many cases, max fd number must be enlarged. More fds means
> more memory. Although memory is cheaper today, we have to do our best
> to save money.

Sorry for interrupting, but I don't see how pipe could return a single fd, 
considering there are two (partly) independent ends, each being read (resp. 
written) in their own time, and an fd has only one "current read/write 
position" IIUC.

If the proposal is to have two independent positions (one for reads and one 
for writes) for a single fd, then I am not sure the gain in the number of 
fds used is worth the loss in the increased size of the fd structure.

Am I missing something?

Amicalement,
--
Albert.
--
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/