[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: proposal: module 'accept4'
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: proposal: module 'accept4' |
Date: |
Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:45:48 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
According to Paolo Bonzini on 8/23/2009 10:22 AM:
> This can be committed as is but it is not enough. You have to always
> use a replacement (thus define the emulation as rpl_accept4) and check
> whether accept4 works at runtime (and similarly for pipe2) and fall back
> to accept+fcntl if it gives ENOSYS.
Is a configure-time AS_RUN_IFELSE test good enough to find which systems
actually support SOCK_CLOEXEC? If I'm understanding correctly, the
runtime test is only needed on systems where SOCK_CLOEXEC is defined, but
the kernel is too old to support it. Or are you saying that it is
possible to compile on a newer glibc, then run with the same libc.so but
against an older kernel, where the result of a configure-time test is no
longer accurate?
- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!
Eric Blake address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkqRcjwACgkQ84KuGfSFAYBs9ACeKXESOj14U9WexWg1szqYQucJ
tsYAoKO5d3v+xNPFImetH1dZPR14ghkF
=MXDA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----