Re: eliminating a syscall on accept()+ioctl() combo

2011-08-02 Thread Vlad Galu
On Aug 2, 2011, at 11:16 PM, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 08:11:04AM +0200, Vlad Galu wrote: >> On Jul 31, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Bernard van Gastel wrote: >>> I want to reduce the number of syscalls for my networking >>> application. The app handles incoming connections with the >>>

Re: eliminating a syscall on accept()+ioctl() combo

2011-08-02 Thread Jilles Tjoelker
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 08:11:04AM +0200, Vlad Galu wrote: > On Jul 31, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Bernard van Gastel wrote: > > I want to reduce the number of syscalls for my networking > > application. The app handles incoming connections with the > > 'accept()' system call. Is there a way to specify to a

Re: eliminating a syscall on accept()+ioctl() combo

2011-07-31 Thread Vlad Galu
On Jul 31, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Bernard van Gastel wrote: > Hi all, > > I want to reduce the number of syscalls for my networking application. The > app handles incoming connections with the 'accept()' system call. Is there a > way to specify to accept() that the newly created file descriptors sh

eliminating a syscall on accept()+ioctl() combo

2011-07-31 Thread Bernard van Gastel
Hi all, I want to reduce the number of syscalls for my networking application. The app handles incoming connections with the 'accept()' system call. Is there a way to specify to accept() that the newly created file descriptors should be non-blocking (FIONBIO)? This will avoid an ioctl() after t