On 04/11/2012 12:46 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> >> a) inherently racy in a multithreaded environment; > > I would say two things. 1) I know and I agree we _can_ misuse the interface. > but many already existed interface also can be misused. 2) As I > already explained > this can be used correctly. > > So, I have a question. Why do you bother a possibility of misuse? Of > if you didn't point out misuse, can you please point out a real world > use case of multi threads + fd interation? > This were brought up in the POSIX discussion as part of why these interfaces were considered undesirable. > >> b) unsafe because there might be file descriptors used by libc itself. > > I agree this. Even though almost developer don't use libc message catalogue and > we can avoid such issue by using nextfd() + fcntl(O_CLOEXEC). > No, that's exactly the point that we cannot. > > Yeah, I don't think fdwalk() is problematic. It's an option if I > understand Alexey's mail > correctly. but I disagree almost all developers should fix a design > and rewrite their > applications. In theory, they can avoid glibc or they can rewrite all > of their code or > avoid linux. but there is one problem. unrealistic. > The problem -- as was brought up in the POSIX discussion -- is that you actually end up breaking *properly functioning programs*. -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
