Re: F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC implementation

[Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>]

Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 11:07:15AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> Also attached is ndelaytest.c which can be used to test that
>> send(MSG_DONTWAIT) indeed is failing with EAGAIN if write would block
>> and that other processes never see O_NONBLOCK set.
>>
>> Comments?
> 
> Never send patches during or approaching hangover?
> 	* it's on a bunch of cyclic lists.  Have its neighbor
> go away while you are doing all that crap => boom
> 	* there's that thing call current position...  It gets buggered.
> 	* overwriting it while another task might be in the middle of
> syscall involving it => boom
> 	* non-cooperative tasks reading *in* *parallel* from the same
> opened file are going to have a lot more serious problems than agreeing
> on O_NONBLOCK anyway, so I really don't understand what the hell is that for.

Good summary... ;)

But for the last part of the last item - sometimes, definitely more than
once, I wondered why there's no equivalent to recv(MSG_DONTWAIT) for
non-sockets -- why for sockets it's as simple as adding an option (a
single bit), while for all the rest it requires two fcntl calls...
Sometimes it's handy. ;)

Not that I'm arguing for or against such a feature anyway..

/mjt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/