[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:0.109 / U:1.520 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site