Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:24:36 +0100 | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |