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

[Changli Gao]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Albert ARIBAUD<albert.aribaud@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
pipe doesn't support llseek.


-- 
Regardsï
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@xxxxxxxxx)
--
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/