Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 04/06/2012 02:54 AM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> 
> I agree, this particular changelog may be somewhat out of line.
> 
> But I find it little hypocritical that kernel developers add CONFIG_PROC_FS,
> fix compilation problems associated with it, do not mount proc by default,
> do not mark it unmountable somehow and
> then say procless setups aren't worth it.
> 

Aren't worth *optimizing for*.  But yes, CONFIG_PROC_FS is pretty much a
historic relic at this point, and probably should just be dropped.

> Without proc knowledge about fdtable is gathered linearly and still unreliable.
> With nextfd(2), even procful environments could lose several failure branches.

What?  Please explain how on Earth this would "lose several failure
branches."

New system calls are not something that should be added lightly...

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/