From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754863AbYIQQwK (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:52:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753694AbYIQQvy (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:51:54 -0400 Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.80.65]:58928 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752917AbYIQQvx (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:51:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:46:54 +0400 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com Cc: Ulrich Drepper , Andrew Morton , David Miller , Davide Libenzi , Alan Cox , Jakub Jelinek , lkml , Linus Torvalds , netdev , Roland McGrath , Oleg Nesterov , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: sys_paccept: disable paccept() until API design is resolved Message-ID: <20080917164654.GB12523@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <48CFA10D.2010106@gmail.com> <48D03E85.9030808@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Michael. On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 02:24:32AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (mtk.manpages@googlemail.com) wrote: > >> accept4(int fd, struct sockaddr *sa, socklen_t *salen, ind flags); > > > > The signal set wasn't actually my idea. See: > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=120909788728078&w=2 > > [CC=+ Evgeniy Polyakov ] > > But, what are you trying to say in pointing out that this wasn't your idea? I asked to put signal mask there to be able to siplify life of those who use accept() and signals. It is not 1005 _required_, but just like it is not required to be in ppoll(). It is an optimization which should allow to block signals during code execution without lots of additional steps (like disabling/enabling them around the call via additional syscalls). -- Evgeniy Polyakov