|| ||Ulrich Drepper <drepper-AT-redhat.com>|
|| ||dean gaudet <dean-AT-arctic.org>|
|| ||Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] sys_indirect system call|
|| ||Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:16:49 -0800|
|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>, Eric Dumazet <dada1-AT-cosmosbay.com>,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
dean gaudet wrote:
> as an application writer how do i access accept(2) with FD_CLOEXEC
> functionality? will glibc expose an accept2() with a flags param?
Not yet decided. There is the alternative to extend the accept()
interface to have both interfaces:
int accept(int, struct sockaddr *, socklen_t *);
int accept(int, struct sockaddr *, socklen_t *, int);
We can do this with type safety even in C nowadays.
> if so... why don't we just have an accept2() syscall?
If you read the mails of my first submission you'll find that I
explained this. I talked to Andrew and he favored new syscalls. But
then I talked to Linus and he favored this approach. Probably
especially because it can be used for syslets as well. And it is less
code and data than introducing new syscalls.
? Ulrich Drepper ? Red Hat, Inc. ? 444 Castro St ? Mountain View, CA ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
to post comments)