Re: [PATCH 2/3] Xext/shm: Better support cases where O_CLOEXEC is not defined

2016-09-12 Thread Julien Cristau
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:53:39 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 2016, at 04:33, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 20:01:50 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > > > >> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Xext/shm: Better support cases where O_CLOEXEC is not defined

2016-09-12 Thread Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
> On Sep 12, 2016, at 04:33, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 20:01:50 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia >> --- >> Xext/shm.c | 6 +- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1

Re: [PATCH 2/3] Xext/shm: Better support cases where O_CLOEXEC is not defined

2016-09-12 Thread Julien Cristau
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 20:01:50 -0700, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > Signed-off-by: Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia > --- > Xext/shm.c | 6 +- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > Does anything have O_TMPFILE but not O_CLOEXEC? Cheers, Julien > diff

[PATCH 2/3] Xext/shm: Better support cases where O_CLOEXEC is not defined

2016-09-11 Thread Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia --- Xext/shm.c | 6 +- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Xext/shm.c b/Xext/shm.c index 125000f..7a45dbd 100644 --- a/Xext/shm.c +++ b/Xext/shm.c @@ -1202,7 +1202,11 @@ shm_tmpfile(void) int