Messages in this thread | | | Date | 09 Jun 2002 11:49:00 +0200 | From | (Kai Henningsen) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Futex Asynchronous Interface |
| |
torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) wrote on 08.06.02 in <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206081523410.11630-100000@home.transmeta.com>:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Peter Waechtler wrote: > > > > What about /proc/futex then? > > Why? > > Tell me _one_ advantage from having the thing exposed as a filename?
None, of course - the shell can't do the other futex ops, either. Futex file handles mean you can implement select() on them, but that's about all they have in common with files - there is certainly no read() or write() operation here!
> > Give it an entry in the namespace, why not with sockets (unix and ip) > > also? > > Perhaps because you cannot enumerate sockets and pipes? They don't _have_ > names before they are created. Same as futexes, btw.
Now *there* I disagree, at least for sockets. First of all, there's absolutely no need to be able to enumerate unopened sockets to justify putting them into the namespace - you can create them (in a special fs, of course) at the moment they are opened. (As in fact is done, in /proc/<pid>/ fd/.) And second, you *can* read() and write() there.
However, I don't think that's all that important. What I'd rather see is making the network devices into namespace nodes. The situation of eth0 and friends, from a Unix perspective, is utterly unnatural.
MfG Kai - 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/
| |