On 9/14/21 8:10 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: > 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. OK good, and as mentioned, I do like it and think this is how it should work. Just add his suggested-by for the v2. -- Jens Axboe
