Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper <at> redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] sys_indirect system call
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
Date: Tuesday 20th November 2007 16:16:49 UTC (over 9 years ago)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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 *);
and
  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)

iD8DBQFHQwhx2ijCOnn/RHQRAnezAKCkFmGwlwDZjpfKTRSUN4yLIeGTkACgtMK/
OcHdIaR8wbp848D3GU2iNYQ=
=nTu9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
CD: 3ms