Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com> writes: > 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.
Asserting the counter doesn't wrap makes sense.
