On 9/14/21 3:02 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > 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. Franz noticed that it would've been more convenient this way. Good idea to add his suggested-by. I had been thinking to make it this way before that, but without particular use cases, it just felt better. -- Pavel Begunkov
