Date: Sun, 5 May 2019 16:38:04 -0400
From: Christos Zoulas <chris...@zoulas.com>
Message-ID: <41fb59a5-c9e0-4392-bd5c-508e5b80e...@zoulas.com>
| I did not want to make it smaller, but yes,
| you are right I will remove the slop.
|
| > On May 5, 2019, at 4:30 PM, matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote:
| > is the old value useful now? i think your checking against
| > the current limit seems totally valid and obsoletes the old
| > check which was simply some slop over open fds.
It might matter in a case where a process has lots open files and
then sets its limit lower (and yes, I have done that while testing
that EMFILE errors get handled correctly...) In such a case it
might want to poll more files than the limit allows.
I also don't believe there's any restriction on including the same
fd more than once (with diffent bits set in events probably) - perhaps
might happen in threaded code when one thread is reading from an fd,
and a diffenent one is writing to it (probably a net connection or tty).
What would probably be more useful would be to remove the limit, or
simply set a reasonable one, and document it. Its relationship to
open file counts is nebulous at best.
kre
