On Wed, 27.11.13 07:46, Shawn Landden ([email protected]) wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:57 PM, David Timothy Strauss > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Shawn Landden <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> Are you sure applications can handle the extra file descriptor of > >> passing both the sockfd > >> and the acceptfd in this case? I don't see why they wouldn't just do > >> the accept() themselves? > >> > >> Can you explain what you mean here, and how it differs from the > >> existing MaxConnections. > > > > Actually, MaxConnections was exactly what I was thinking of. I agree > > with you now on Distribute=true only being useful with Accept=false. > The current code I have has Distribute take a number, but it certainly > would be possible to use > the MaxConnections number---however I don't do that as "connections" > isn't quite the > right word, and we can't easily change it because it is part of the API.
Yeah, I agree. Let's leave MaxConnections= and Distribute= independent. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
