From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270117AbTGUO0y (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:26:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270120AbTGUO0x (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:26:53 -0400 Received: from pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.19.3]:58515 "EHLO pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270117AbTGUO0j (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:26:39 -0400 Message-Id: <200307211441.h6LEfQT02085@pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl> To: RAMON_GARCIA_F cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Suggestion for a new system call: convert file handle to a cookie for transfering file handles between processes. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:49:15 +0200." <4cace4bf68.4bf684cace@teleline.es> X-mailer: MH [Version 6.8.4] X-charset: ISO_8859-1 Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:41:25 -0400 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org RAMON_GARCIA_F said: > Although it is posible to use unix sockets, my proposal > integrates better with shell scripts. I fail to see why using sockets et al in shell scripts is that important. You have full access to the API from Perl, for one; shell scripts are used mostly as scaffolding for calling "normal" programs, so inventing something to do what you want and call that from the shell is the way to go IMHO. Only if there is absolutely no way to do it sanely outside the kernel, and futhermore it is very important to do, should the kernel get involved (sure, Linux is way the largest Unix installed base around today, but still _far_ from the one that defines the standards in the area, which means a Linux-only system call is a step forward and three back, so...) -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513