From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757001Ab2DDQoO (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:44:14 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:61020 "EHLO mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756930Ab2DDQoM (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:44:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4F7C7907.3090808@gmail.com> References: <20120401125741.GA7484@p183.telecom.by> <4F7A3CC2.1040200@zytor.com> <4F7C7907.3090808@gmail.com> From: Ulrich Drepper Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:43:51 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2) To: KOSAKI Motohiro Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Alexey Dobriyan , akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:38, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > As far as I understand, any major open source project don't use > posix_spawn(). > Please remind, I'm talking about real world issue. This doesn't mean they shouldn't. If you require code to be changed anyway let them change to something which doesn't require more cruft in the kernel. The limitations you cited are irrelevant for posix_spawn. And perhaps there will be actually spawn support in the kernel which would make dealing with OOM situations and non-overcommit much easier.