Felix von Leitner wrote:
> > close (0);
> > close (1);
> > close (2);
> > open ("/dev/console", O_RDWR);
> > dup ();
> > dup ();
>
> So it's not actually part of POSIX, it's just to get around fixing
> legacy code? ;-)
This makes me wonder...
If the kernel only kept a queue of the three smallest unused fd's, and
when the queue emptied handed out whatever it liked, how many things
would break? I suspect this would cover a lot of bases...
<dons flameproof underwear>
regards,
David
--
David L. Parsley
Network Administrator
Roanoke College
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Albert D. Cahalan
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Linus Torvalds
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Felix von Leitner
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Peter Samuelson
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Ingo Molnar
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Felix von Leitner
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jamie Lokier
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Felix von Leitner
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David L. Parsley
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Jakub Jelinek
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David L. Parsley
- RE: Is sendfile all that sexy? Laramie Leavitt
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? dean gaudet
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Sasi Peter
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? James Sutherland
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Anton Blanchard
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Sasi Peter
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? Anton Blanchard
- Re: Is sendfile all that sexy? David S. Miller

