From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757026AbYH2UoV (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:44:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753452AbYH2UoK (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:44:10 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.233]:13646 "EHLO rv-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753371AbYH2UoJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:44:09 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:references; b=ceAeYdwo19pRv2V41t2FUpKzekvCYbYDghBIumww56R5VWEPd3rGctlm6M4Ku/sR6l ZUSDDv1WtXtXahaW4l15wSgAsb9JDG0vnOvZK+F6d3gfVI9cIobeF54p/YjP0FVV1592 f5zoDw/+zmLRdlKBw/lpeH7p8HlfvJPjjvAdU= Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:44:08 +0200 From: "Michael Kerrisk" Reply-To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com To: "Ulrich Drepper" Subject: Re: No NONBLOCK flag for dup3() or epoll_create1()? Cc: "Andrew Morton" , "Al Viro" , lkml , "Davide Libenzi" In-Reply-To: <48AC4B19.6000206@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <48AC4B19.6000206@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ping! On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > Ulrich > > I've been doing some testing (2.6.27-rc3) of your new > file-descriptor-creating syscalls that accept flags. According to > > http://udrepper.livejournal.com/20407.html > > all of the system calls should accept a *_NONBLOCK flag. All of them do, > except for two: > dup3(olfd, newfd, flags) > and > epoll_create1(flags). > > For epoll_create1() this certainly appears to be an oversight, since I can't > think of a reason not to support *_NONBLOCK. > > For dup3() it is perhaps also an oversight. However, it's not really clear > to me whether supporting O_NONBLOCK makes sense, since that would change the > file status flags of the open file description that is (also) referred to by > oldfd. (Furthermore, given a open file description for which O_NONBLOCK is > already enabled, it is not possible to make a dup3() call that disables > O_NONBLOCK, which is an odd asymmetry in the API.) What are your thoughts > on > this? > > Cheers, > > Michael > > -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html