From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: KOSAKI Motohiro Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:07:26 -0700 Message-ID: <4F7C7FCE.3090105@gmail.com> References: <20120401125741.GA7484@p183.telecom.by> <4F7A3CC2.1040200@zytor.com> <4F7C7907.3090808@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro , "H. Peter Anvin" , Alexey Dobriyan , akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Ulrich Drepper Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org (4/4/12 9:43 AM), Ulrich Drepper wrote: > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:38, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: >> As far as I understand, any major open source project don't use >> posix_spawn(). >> Please remind, I'm talking about real world issue. > > This doesn't mean they shouldn't. If you require code to be changed > anyway let them change to something which doesn't require more cruft > in the kernel. The limitations you cited are irrelevant for > posix_spawn. And perhaps there will be actually spawn support in the > kernel which would make dealing with OOM situations and non-overcommit > much easier. Umm... I'm sorry. I haven't catch why OOM is related topic. Could you please elaborate more?