Re: Please revert git commit 1ad3dcc0

[Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1@t-online.de>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Side note: this would be a valid argument, except it's not always true. 
> I'm not sure why Luke wanted the fd in the first place, though, and 
> whether we want it.

The only reason was a failed LTP testcase which fills up the FD table 
and then called exec.

> Some loaders may actually want the fd value, see for example themisc 
> loader and MISC_FMT_OPEN_BINARY, and the ELF loader _does_ actually do it 
> for the (interpreter_type == INTERPRETER_AOUT) case.

The flat loader does not need a FD value.

>> Before the change, we didn't allocate or install a file descriptor, hence
>> there wasn't any reason to return EMFILE.  The spec at
>>   http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exec.html
>> doesn't list EMFILE as a possible error.
> 
> Totally irrelevant.

I think it is relevant: if the spec does not require it, and the flat 
loader does not need the FD, then there is no reason to return EMFILE. 
Both conditions are true in this case.  If the spec did require it, then 
that would be an argument that the LTP testcase is valid, and for 
keeping the original patch.


Bernd