> Are you sure?
The code references the per-process limit
(p->p_rlimit[RLIMIT_NOFILE].rlim_cur).
> That would mean that the pollfd array is larger than the amount
> of open files you're allowed.
Right, the concatenation of multiple pollfd arrays does not
eliminate multiple occurences of fds in userland. So, we
might end up with n * p_rlimit[RLIMIT_NOFILE] entries where n
is any number >= 1. I have not evaluated yet the feasibility
of eliminating multiple occurences as that would involve
adding complexity for a special case to quite generic code.
> I think it may be a good idea to actually allow double
> RLIMIT_NOFILE and FD_SETSIZE for flexibility.
Yes. What do you think about adding a sysctl which defines
the maximum size (e.g. kern.maxpollfds)? That could be
initialized to kern.maxfilesperproc to maintain the current
behaviour.
- Sascha Experience IRCG
http://schumann.cx/ http://schumann.cx/ircg
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
