Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Jul 2009 09:12:42 +0800 | Subject | Re: PROPOSAL: extend pipe() to support NULL argument. | From | Changli Gao <> |
| |
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Albert ARIBAUD<albert.aribaud@free.fr> wrote: > Changli Gao a écrit : > >> 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.
-- Regards, Changli Gao(xiaosuo@gmail.com) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |