On Nov 24, 2007 12:28 AM, Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, but maybe for consistency, we might accept the two mechanisms.
It's not a question of the kernel interface. The issue with all these
extensions is the userlevel interface. Ideally no new userlevel
interface is needed. This is the case for open() and incidentally
also for this case (through the flags parameter for recvmsg). For
socket(), accept(), the situation is unfortunately different and we
need a new interface.
With your proposed patch, we would have to introduce another recvmsg()
interface to take advantage of the additional functionality. This
just doesn't make any sense. This is no contest in aesthetics. You
first have to think about the interface presented to the programmer at
userlevel and then design the syscall interface. This is how
MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC came about.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
