From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, drepper@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 23:16:02 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120406201601.GA3310@p183.telecom.by> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F7F1659.5090305@zytor.com>
On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 09:14:17AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 02:54 AM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >
> > I agree, this particular changelog may be somewhat out of line.
> >
> > But I find it little hypocritical that kernel developers add CONFIG_PROC_FS,
> > fix compilation problems associated with it, do not mount proc by default,
> > do not mark it unmountable somehow and
> > then say procless setups aren't worth it.
> >
>
> Aren't worth *optimizing for*. But yes, CONFIG_PROC_FS is pretty much a
> historic relic at this point, and probably should just be dropped.
What to do with automounting /proc so it availablility would match
syscall availability?
> > Without proc knowledge about fdtable is gathered linearly and still unreliable.
> > With nextfd(2), even procful environments could lose several failure branches.
>
> What? Please explain how on Earth this would "lose several failure
> branches."
closefrom(3) written via nextfd(2) loop is reliable and doesn't fail.
closefrom(3) written via /proc/self/fd is reliable and can fail (including ENOMEM).
closefrom(3) written via close(fd++) is unreliable.
If programmer adds nextfd(2) loop before any closefrom(3) code
he currently uses, there will be less failures.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-06 20:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-01 12:57 [PATCH] nextfd(2) Alexey Dobriyan
2012-04-01 13:58 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-04-01 21:30 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2012-04-02 0:09 ` Alan Cox
2012-04-02 8:38 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2012-04-02 9:26 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2012-04-01 15:43 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-01 21:31 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2012-04-01 21:36 ` Alan Cox
2012-04-01 17:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-01 18:28 ` Valentin Nechayev
2012-04-01 21:33 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2012-04-01 19:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-01 21:35 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2012-04-01 22:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-04 12:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-04-01 22:03 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-01 22:13 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-02 0:08 ` Alan Cox
2012-04-30 9:58 ` Valentin Nechayev
2012-04-02 1:19 ` Kyle Moffett
2012-04-02 1:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-02 11:37 ` Ulrich Drepper
2012-04-06 9:54 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2012-04-06 15:27 ` Colin Walters
2012-04-06 16:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-06 20:16 ` Alexey Dobriyan [this message]
2012-04-06 20:33 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-06 21:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-12 10:54 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2012-04-12 11:11 ` Alan Cox
2012-04-12 13:35 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2012-04-12 13:51 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-12 19:21 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2012-04-12 14:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-04-06 16:23 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-07 21:21 ` Ben Pfaff
2012-04-11 0:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-11 0:09 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-11 17:58 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-11 18:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-11 18:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-11 19:46 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-11 19:49 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-11 20:23 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-11 20:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-17 18:12 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-11 18:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-11 19:20 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-11 19:22 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-11 19:26 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-11 19:28 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-11 19:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-11 19:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-02 23:17 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-02 23:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-04 11:51 ` Ulrich Drepper
2012-04-04 16:38 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-04 16:43 ` Ulrich Drepper
2012-04-04 17:07 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-04 17:49 ` Ulrich Drepper
2012-04-04 18:08 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-04 16:31 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-04 17:10 ` Colin Walters
2012-04-04 17:25 ` Colin Walters
2012-04-04 23:35 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2012-04-04 18:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-04-03 19:21 ` Colin Walters
2012-04-04 3:01 ` Al Viro
2012-04-04 17:10 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120406201601.GA3310@p183.telecom.by \
--to=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=drepper@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).