(cc linux-api) (cc linux-arch)
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 12:41:50 -0400 Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This patch reintroduces accept4, replacing paccept. It's easy to see that > the patch only removes code and then redirects existing code away from the > removed functions. Since the paccept code sans signal handling was never > in question I think there is no reason to quarantine the patch first. I'll confess to not having a clue what's going on here. What is accept4() and why do I want one? Sigh. Hopefully others have been following more closely and have some context. > I've updated the test program which now looks as follows: > > #include <fcntl.h> > #include <pthread.h> > #include <stdio.h> > #include <unistd.h> > #include <netinet/in.h> > #include <sys/socket.h> > #include <sys/syscall.h> > > #ifdef __x86_64__ > #define __NR_accept4 288 > #define SOCK_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC > #elif __i386__ > #define SYS_ACCEPT4 18 > #define USE_SOCKETCALL 1 > #define SOCK_CLOEXEC O_CLOEXEC > #else Well. This doesn't actually agree with the kernel patch. > > ... > > arch/x86/include/asm/unistd_64.h | 4 - > include/linux/net.h | 6 -- > include/linux/syscalls.h | 3 - > kernel/sys_ni.c | 2 > net/compat.c | 50 ++---------------------- > net/socket.c | 80 > ++++----------------------------------- I'd suggest that i386 is sufficiently common to warrant its inclusion in the initial patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
