> can you see any danger to providing a /proc/self_task/ link? (or can you
> think of a better name/API/approach)
That is a poor name to choose given /proc/self/task exists as something
else (just try writing a sentence comparing them and then read it aloud).
Probably /proc/self/task/self is what
Oh, it seems it has indeed been that way for a very long time, so I was
mistaken. It still seems a little odd to me. Ulrich can say definitively
whether the kind of concern I mentioned really matters one way or the other
for glibc.
Thanks,
Roland
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "
When did /proc/self get changed to follow tgid instead of pid? glibc uses
/proc/self to refer to various things that are usually shared anyway (fd,
maps, cwd, exe), but I think the expectation has always been that this
refers to the same calling thread, not the group leader. e.g., if one
thread h
> I'd actually prefer this as part of the "remove OPEN_MAX" patch.
Ok. (But now you're going to argue with me about "remove OPEN_MAX",
and you haven't said you have any problem with changing SCM_MAX_FD,
so why make it wait?)
> That said, it actually worries me that you should call "_SC_OPEN_MAX"
n arbitrary number with no useful relation to
anything. Nothing should be using it. SCM_MAX_FD is just an arbitrary
constant and it should be clear that its value is chosen in net/scm.h
and not actually derived from anything else meaningful in the system.
Signed-off-by: Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PRO
