Re: >256 fd patch...

James L. McGill (
Fri, 21 Mar 1997 04:50:54 -0600 (CST)

On 21 Mar 1997, Matthias Urlichs wrote:

>> Ahh yes. It would be a major memory win (very few of them were using
>> more than 32 fd's), but from my point of view it would complicate the
>> patch, and slow it down. I belive it's more suited to be a kernel
>> compile option, than a permenant place in the kernel.
>That would _not_ slow the patch down. One single comparison is all you'd
>have to add.
>Here's my version of the fs/select.c part of your patch, relative to
>your patch. Completely untested (so far -- my test system is broken at
>the moment) but believed to be correct.

I'm sorry to have to ask, but, What Patch?
Please give a url or send it to me, if you don't mind.

g-r-a-t-e-f-u-l-l-y---[   email:<>   ]---l-i-v-i-n-g
d-e-a-d-i-c-a-t-e-d---[ ]-----l-i-g-h-t