From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [PATCH] socket, socketpair w/flags, accept4 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:29:57 +0400 Message-ID: <20080425042957.GA17699@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <200804241820.m3OIKlMK017580@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org To: Ulrich Drepper Return-path: Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:44550 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751022AbYDYEan (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:30:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200804241820.m3OIKlMK017580@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi. On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 02:20:47PM -0400, Ulrich Drepper (drepper@redhat.com) wrote: > The code changes are really minimal. And don't get too hung up on the > internal name of the syscall. I think accept4 is more desriptive than > paccept since a) suffixes more easily indicate derived functionality > and b) the 4 actually indicates to the initiated what has changed. > If there are good reasons otherwise the userlevel interface can still > be something completely different. What about sigset there too? -- Evgeniy Polyakov