On 9/14/21 7:37 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > It might be inconvenient that direct open/accept deviates from the > update semantics and fails if the slot is taken instead of removing a > file sitting there. Implement the auto-removal. > > Note that removal might need to allocate and so may fail. However, if an > empty slot is specified, it's guaraneed to not fail on the fd > installation side. It's needed for users that can't tolerate spuriously > closed files, e.g. accepts where the other end doesn't expect it. I think this makes sense, just curious if this was driven by feedback from a user, or if it's something that came about thinking about the use cases? This is certainly more flexible and allows an application to open a new file in an existing slot, rather than needing to explicitly close it first. -- Jens Axboe
