From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:33:47 +0300
Message-ID: <20120401213347.GC4408@p183.telecom.by>
References: <20120401125741.GA7484@p183.telecom.by>
 <20120401182825.GJ21084@netch.kiev.ua>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, drepper@gmail.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Valentin Nechayev <netch@netch.kiev.ua>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120401182825.GJ21084@netch.kiev.ua>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 09:28:26PM +0300, Valentin Nechayev wrote:
>  Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 15:57:42, adobriyan wrote about "[PATCH] nextfd(2)": 
> 
> > So, don't add closefrom(2), add nextfd(2).
> > 
> > 	int nextfd(int fd)
> 
> Is it really needed here to create syscall? One shall update all arch
> lists for it. Instead, adding a new option for fcntl() (named e.g.
> F_NEXTFD) solves for all platforms simultaneously.

This is not a problem, build system even checks for not yet added syscalls.
Explicit syscall is better than multiplexer.