Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Why not just implement a fcntl replacement, supporting only > F_GETFD/F_SETFD for now (and maybe in the future F_DUPFD and > F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC, as you mention below)?
One thing at a time. I agree with Eric. I would have a hard time reviewing a patch that implements fcntl, popen, popen-safer, and fixes flock, all in one patch. Bruno
