lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1
> I don't think this is a viable approach because it is not about the
> range. People can and do select arbitrary values for those types.
> Until a value is officially recognized and registered it is in fact best
> to choose a (possibly large) random value to not conflict with anything
> else. Who can guarantee that whatever bit is chosen for SOCK_CLOEXEC
> isn't already used by someone?

There are only a small number of valid socket types recognized by POSIX
plus a few BSD plus a few Linux ones so Linux can happily assign the
upper bits for a different purpose.

> Add to this that it's not a complete solution (no such hack possible for
> accept) and I think using a new interface is cleaner(tm).

Every other property of a socket via accept() is inherited from the
parent. Making one property different would be bizarre and ugly.

Alan


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-24 16:57    [W:1.014 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site