[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] nextfd(2)
    On 04/10/2012 05:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    > I know the reason. fcntl(F_NEXT) is one of a proposal of next SUS enhancement.
    > nextfd() has a semantics of F_NEXT.
    > Next, why shoundn't we implement fcntl(F_NEXT) in our kernel? I think
    > we have two reason.
    > 1) As linus pointed out, linux specific "flags" argument may be useful.
    > 2) The name of F_NEXT is not fixed yet. another url of the austin says
    > it is FD_NEXT.
    > So, we can't choose right name yet. Moreover, A meanings of 3rd
    > argument of F_NEXT
    > haven't been fixed.

    But it still has the same braindamage: one system call per loop
    invocation, and we can do better. I would much rather see fdwalk() in SUS.


     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-11 20:01    [W:0.019 / U:11.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site