On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Erik Faye-Lund <kusmabite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Marko Kreen <markokr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] >> Hm, good catch. Seems such compat poll() cannot be done without >> OS-specific hacks. >> > > Perhaps getrlimit() could overridden to return FD_SETSIZE for both the > soft and hard limit when asking about RLIMIT_NOFILE? In such cases, > anyone who passes nfds above FD_SETSIZE hasn't consulted > RLIMIT_NOFILE, and should be outside the standard. But your point > might have been about a limitless poll()-implementation, like the code > you linked tried to achieve. In that context, no. I doubt it's > possible to do in a robust fashion. This is getting far off-topic, but I do think it's possible to do in a robust fashion if you are willing to sacrifice some performance [i.e. we should not consider this for Git =) ], by creating multiple fd_set structures and only shoving up to FD_SETSIZE descriptors into each. Cycling between the structures would cause some extra latency and a LOT more code complexity, but it should work. --bert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html