On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 02:24:56PM -0400, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:13:13 -0500 > mdroth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > Looks like you guys have no *practical* problems to solve. Congrats! > > > Take a vacation! Please report back no later than 275 years from now, > > > to make sure this 64 bit fd counter overflow problem gets taken care of > > > in time. ;-P > > > > > > > Haha, well, I didn't want to be that one lazy developer who brings about > > the downfall of future human civilization... but if it's a really big > > deal they'll probably send someone back from the future to let me know, > > so maybe I'm jumping the gun a bit :) > > I *am* that guy, but I was afraid to tell :) > > > I just didn't want to introduce a new interface that relied on > > interfaces that were planned for deprecation in the *long*-term, but i > > think you're right, it's too much hassle for current users for too > > little gain, and there's plenty of time to do it in the future so I'll > > hold off on it for now. > > Let me clarify it: when I read the code I didn't realize fd_counter > would never wrap. I think this discussion is settled now. However, I > still think that having an assert there is good practice. > > I can post a patch myself. >
Sounds good :)
