On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I do see a problem, because some readers will take your example as a > > reference, as it will probably sit in a page that > > google^Wsearch_engines will bring at the top of search results for > > next ten years or so. > > > > (I bet for "sys_indirect syscall" -> http://lwn.net/Articles/258708/ ) > > > > Next time you post it, please warn users that it will break in some > > years, or state clearly this should only be used internally by glibc. > > dont be silly, next time Ulrich should also warn everyone that running > attachments and applying patches from untrusted sources is dangerous? > > any code that includes: > > fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i)); > > is by definition broken and unportable in every sense of the word. Apps > will use the proper glibc interfaces (if it's exposed).
as an application writer how do i access accept(2) with FD_CLOEXEC functionality? will glibc expose an accept2() with a flags param? if so... why don't we just have an accept2() syscall? -dean - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
