From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: NFSv4/pNFS possible POSIX I/O API standards Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 05:35:13 -0700 Message-ID: <20061129123512.GH14315@parisc-linux.org> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20061127213243.04f786c0@cic-mail.lanl.gov> <20061128055428.GA29891@infradead.org> <20061129090450.GA16296@infradead.org> <20061129122313.GG14315@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Gary Grider , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:51390 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967166AbWK2MfN (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:35:13 -0500 To: Christoph Hellwig Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061129122313.GG14315@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 05:23:13AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 09:04:50AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > - openg/sutoc > > > > No way. We already have a very nice file descriptor abstraction. > > You can pass file descriptors over unix sockets just fine. > > Yes, but it behaves like dup(). Gary replied to me off-list (which I > didn't notice and continued replying to him off-list). I wrote: > > Is this for people who don't know about dup(), or do they need > independent file offsets? If the latter, I think an xdup() would be > preferable (would there be a security issue for OSes with revoke()?) > Either that, or make the key be useful for something else. I further wonder if these people would see appreciable gains from doing sutoc rather than doing openat(dirfd, "basename", flags, mode); If they did, I could also see openat being extended to allow dirfd to be a file fd, as long as pathname were NULL or a pointer to NUL. But with all the readx stuff being proposed, I bet they don't really need independent file offsets. That's, like, so *1970*s.