Re: FD_CLFORK or equivalent?

Bernd Eckenfels (ecki@lina.inka.de)
Wed, 5 May 1999 00:52:53 +0200

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Mark Russinovich's reponse Was: [OT] Comments to WinNT Mag !! (fwd)"
Previous message: Roeland Th. Jansen: "Re: [OT] SB Live! drivers released for Linux"
Maybe in reply to: Sam Roberts: "FD_CLFORK or equivalent?"
Next in thread: justinf@us.ibm.com: "Re: FD_CLFORK or equivalent?"

In article <Pine.QNX.3.96.990504112943.30630A-100000@sam.cogent.ca> you wrote:
> If not, before I hack one in as a private kernel patch, is
> there any reason to add such a mechanism, perhaps a FD_CLOFORK
> flag, and does anybody have suggestions on where to start?

A reason would be, that this is a good way of making daemons. Since closing
all fds from 0-255 is not enough on systems where high-numberes fds can be
open.

Greetings
Bernd

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Richard B. Johnson: "Re: Mark Russinovich's reponse Was: [OT] Comments to WinNT Mag !! (fwd)"
Previous message: Roeland Th. Jansen: "Re: [OT] SB Live! drivers released for Linux"
Maybe in reply to: Sam Roberts: "FD_CLFORK or equivalent?"
Next in thread: justinf@us.ibm.com: "Re: FD_CLFORK or equivalent?"