On 04/10/2012 05:09 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > I know the reason. fcntl(F_NEXT) is one of a proposal of next SUS enhancement. > > http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=149 > > nextfd() has a semantics of F_NEXT. > > Next, why shoundn't we implement fcntl(F_NEXT) in our kernel? I think > we have two reason. > > 1) As linus pointed out, linux specific "flags" argument may be useful. > 2) The name of F_NEXT is not fixed yet. another url of the austin says > it is FD_NEXT. > So, we can't choose right name yet. Moreover, A meanings of 3rd > argument of F_NEXT > haven't been fixed. > But it still has the same braindamage: one system call per loop invocation, and we can do better. I would much rather see fdwalk() in SUS. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
