From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael Kerrisk" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cleanup paccept Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:20:35 -0500 Message-ID: <517f3f820810281320l5ed1df3v3717584e4284a43f@mail.gmail.com> References: <200810281909.m9SJ9pdj003624@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com> <517f3f820810281310y2b02705fs8b402a5ca5117f51@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <517f3f820810281310y2b02705fs8b402a5ca5117f51-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org >> The actual patch which is in the kernel is different from >> the patch in the mail: only the signal mask handling has been disabled. >> This is why this is only a cleanup patch. > > And that does not explain to the world at large what this > to-be-enabled system call does, or why it's needed. And one further point: what is the userspace interface going to look like for this system call? Are we to see a repeat of the unsafe userspace implementation of pselect() that was present in glibc before the kernel finally added a pselect() system call? In other words: is the userspace interface for accept4() going to be the thinnest of wrappers, or will glibc add an unsafe paccept()-with-signal-mask in userspace? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html