From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:43:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOPLpQfowVbAfY5utOa4pYDkA+AtLGU0zMLC5Eq5oH=zVrVC6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120401125741.GA7484@p183.telecom.by> <CAHGf_=pgpRrQA3-YVtS=h-Bjq2LyTFmYtKGxxWgwP0XWexnh2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F7A3CC2.1040200@zytor.com> <CAOPLpQebqKED5G1nti6i=JLZ+A6df2UdA86RVEv1Er7hw7KFpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F7C7907.3090808@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F7C7907.3090808@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:38, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> 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.