Re: [PATCHv4 5/6] Allow setting O_NONBLOCK flag for new sockets [LWN.net]

From:		David Miller <davem-AT-davemloft.net>
To:		drepper-AT-redhat.com
Subject:		Re: [PATCHv4 5/6] Allow setting O_NONBLOCK flag for new sockets
Date:		Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:59:44 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID:		<20071119.235944.82120402.davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:		linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org, mingo-AT-elte.hu, tglx-AT-linutronix.de, torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org
Archive-link:		Article, Thread

From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:53:14 -0500

FWIW, I think this indirect syscall stuff is the most ugly interface
I've ever seen proposed for the kernel.

And I agree with all of the objections raised by both H. Pater Anvin
and Eric Dumazet.

> This patch adds support for setting the O_NONBLOCK flag of the file
> descriptors returned by socket, socketpair, and accept.
 ...
> -	err = sock_attach_fd(sock1, newfile1);
> +	err = sock_attach_fd(sock1, newfile1,
> +			     INDIRECT_PARAM(file_flags, flags));

Where does this INDIRECT_PARAM() macro get defined?  I do not
see it being defined anywhere in these patches.

(Log in to post comments)