On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 11:59 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> @@ -667,10 +665,9 @@ void do_close_on_exec(struct files_struct *files)
> fdt = files_fdtable(files);
> if (fd >= fdt->max_fds)
> break;
> - set = fdt->close_on_exec[i];
> +
On Wed, Nov 04 2015, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 10:41 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>
>> @@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ void do_close_on_exec(struct files_struct *files)
>> fdt = files_fdtable(files);
>> if (fd >= fdt->max_fds)
>> break;
>> -
On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 10:41 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> @@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ void do_close_on_exec(struct files_struct *files)
> fdt = files_fdtable(files);
> if (fd >= fdt->max_fds)
> break;
> - set = fdt->close_on_exec[i];
> +
On Tue, Nov 03 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Rasmus Villemoes
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure I've missed something, hence the RFC. But if not, there's
>> probably also a few memsets which become redundant. And the
>> __set_close_on_exec part should probably be its own pa
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Rasmus Villemoes
wrote:
>
> I'm sure I've missed something, hence the RFC. But if not, there's
> probably also a few memsets which become redundant. And the
> __set_close_on_exec part should probably be its own patch...
The patch looks fine to me. I'm not sure the
In fc90888d07b8 (vfs: conditionally clear close-on-exec flag) a
conditional was added to __clear_close_on_exec to avoid dirtying a
cache line in the common case where the bit is already clear. However,
AFAICT, we don't rely on the close_on_exec bit being clear for unused
fds, except as an optimizat
6 matches
Mail list logo
