Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)

[H. Peter Anvin]

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.

--
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/