On Nov 24, 2007 12:28 AM, Eric Dumazet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, but maybe for consistency, we might accept the two mechanisms.
It's not a question of the kernel interface. The issue with all these extensions is the userlevel interface. Ideally no new userlevel interface is needed. This is the case for open() and incidentally also for this case (through the flags parameter for recvmsg). For socket(), accept(), the situation is unfortunately different and we need a new interface. With your proposed patch, we would have to introduce another recvmsg() interface to take advantage of the additional functionality. This just doesn't make any sense. This is no contest in aesthetics. You first have to think about the interface presented to the programmer at userlevel and then design the syscall interface. This is how MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC came about. - 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/
