From: Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: [PATCH] alternative to sys_indirect, part 1 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:18:43 -0700 Message-ID: <481096C3.2020206@redhat.com> References: <200804240403.m3O43us8028699@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20080424112514.055d8071@the-village.bc.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org To: Alan Cox Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:38000 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751797AbYDXOTm (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:19:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080424112514.055d8071@the-village.bc.nu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alan Cox wrote: > Given we will never have 2^32 socket types, and in a sense this is pa= rt > of the type why not just use >=20 > socket(PF_INET, SOCK_STREAM|SOCK_CLOEXEC, ...) >=20 > that would be far far cleaner, no new syscalls on the socket side at = all. You have a strange sense of "clean" I must say. I don't think this is a viable approach because it is not about the range. People can and do select arbitrary values for those types. Until a value is officially recognized and registered it is in fact bes= t to choose a (possibly large) random value to not conflict with anything else. Who can guarantee that whatever bit is chosen for SOCK_CLOEXEC isn't already used by someone? Add to this that it's not a complete solution (no such hack possible fo= r accept) and I think using a new interface is cleaner(tm). - -- =E2=9E=A7 Ulrich Drepper =E2=9E=A7 Red Hat, Inc. =E2=9E=A7 444 Castro S= t =E2=9E=A7 Mountain View, CA =E2=9D=96 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIEJbD2ijCOnn/RHQRAnUBAKDFxC7Xkl8Qlo5u7PS8XBx4WrNzRQCgm2Ic mV6zeglZaTJMn3IuGv3tB60=3D =3D06jC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----