On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:32:02 -0700 (PDT)
Christian Seiler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Do you think mallocing an fd_set and using FD_SET() and friends
> > would be better? The (dispose|finish) loops would visit FD_SETSIZE
> > bits with an FD_ISSET() test, which is more work than you have
> > currently wit
Hi,
> Do you think mallocing an fd_set and using FD_SET() and friends
> would be better? The (dispose|finish) loops would visit FD_SETSIZE bits
> with an FD_ISSET() test, which is more work than you have currently
> with the early out, but we would probably save on the initialization
> with FD_ZER
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:18:03 +0200
Christian Seiler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a heads up:
>
> > Since the if uses >=, the - 1 is not needed and the MAXFDS'th
> > entry in the fds array can be used.
>
> This was from part of one of my patches regarding lxc-attach and it is
> NOT an off-by-one error
Hi,
Just a heads up:
> Since the if uses >=, the - 1 is not needed and the MAXFDS'th
> entry in the fds array can be used.
This was from part of one of my patches regarding lxc-attach and it is
NOT an off-by-one error, it is meant to be this way. The problem is that
the array has to be traversed
Since the if uses >=, the - 1 is not needed and the MAXFDS'th
entry in the fds array can be used.
---
src/lxc/cgroup.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/lxc/cgroup.c b/src/lxc/cgroup.c
index a02ebc2..7bb88b5 100644
--- a/src/lxc/cgroup.c
+++ b/src/lxc/cg
