Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 0/4] sys_indirect system call
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
Date: 2007-11-20 16:16:49 GMT (1 year, 32 weeks, 3 days, 2 hours and 12 minutes ago)
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 ❖