From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:55:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:55:34 -0400 Received: from pizda.ninka.net ([216.101.162.242]:37509 "EHLO pizda.ninka.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:55:25 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20010814.165320.77058794.davem@redhat.com> To: thockin@sun.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: poll change From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <3B79BA07.B57634FD@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <3B79B5F3.C816CBED@sun.com> <20010814.163804.66057702.davem@redhat.com> <3B79BA07.B57634FD@sun.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.0 on Emacs 21.0 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Tim Hockin Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:53:43 -0700 The standard says negative fd's are ignored. We get that right. What we are left with is an overly paranoid check against max_fds. This check should go away. You should be able to pass in up to your rlimit fds, and let negative ones (holes or tails) be ignored. I am saying there is no problem. In both cases, for a properly written application we ignore the invalid fds. The behavior is identical both before and after your change, so there is no reason to make it. Later, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com