"David S. Miller" wrote:

> Right, and our equivalent is "NR_OPEN".
> 
> Ok, I think I see what you and Tim are trying to say.
> I'm thinking in a select() minded way which is why I didn't
> understand :-)

Whew! :)

> Yeah, the check can be removed, but anyone who cares about
> performance won't pass in huge arrays of -1 entries if only
> the low few pollfd entries are actually useful.

of course...patch attached, for anyone who cares - do we need to send it to
anyone else, or are you going to channel it in, Dave?

-- 
Tim Hockin
Systems Software Engineer
Sun Microsystems, Cobalt Server Appliances
thockin@sun.com