On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 07:22:17PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On 22.05.2019 18:52, Christian Brauner wrote:> This adds the close_range()
> syscall. It allows to efficiently close a range
> > of file descriptors up to all file descriptors of a calling task.
> >
> > The syscall came up
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 09:43:53AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:33 PM Christian Brauner
> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 07:22:17PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > On 22.05.2019 18:52, Christian Brauner wrote:> This adds the
> > > close_range() syscall.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:33 PM Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 07:22:17PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > On 22.05.2019 18:52, Christian Brauner wrote:> This adds the close_range()
> > syscall. It allows to efficiently close a range
> > > 22 files changed, 100
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 07:22:17PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On 22.05.2019 18:52, Christian Brauner wrote:> This adds the close_range()
> syscall. It allows to efficiently close a range
> > of file descriptors up to all file descriptors of a calling task.
> >
> > The syscall came up
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov
> Sent: 23 May 2019 17:22
> > In addition, the syscall will also work for tasks that do not have procfs
> > mounted and on kernels that do not have procfs support compiled in. In such
> > situations the only way to make sure that all file descriptors are closed
On 22.05.2019 18:52, Christian Brauner wrote:> This adds the close_range()
syscall. It allows to efficiently close a range
> of file descriptors up to all file descriptors of a calling task.
>
> The syscall came up in a recent discussion around the new mount API and
> making new file descriptor
On 05/23, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> So given that we would really need another find_next_open_fd() I think
> sticking to the simple cond_resched() version I sent before is better
> for now until we see real-world performance issues.
OK, agreed.
Oleg.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 04:32:14PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 1:51 PM Christian Brauner
> wrote:
> [...]
> > I kept it dumb and was about to reply that your solution introduces more
> > code when it seemed we wanted to keep this very simple for now.
> > But then I saw that
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 04:14:47PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 01:51:18PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 06:57:37PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 05/22, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +static struct file *pick_file(struct
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 01:51:18PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 06:57:37PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 05/22, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > >
> > > +static struct file *pick_file(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd)
> > > {
> > > - struct file *file;
> > > +
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 06:57:37PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/22, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >
> > +static struct file *pick_file(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd)
> > {
> > - struct file *file;
> > + struct file *file = NULL;
> > struct fdtable *fdt;
> >
> >
On 05/22, Christian Brauner wrote:
>
> +static struct file *pick_file(struct files_struct *files, unsigned fd)
> {
> - struct file *file;
> + struct file *file = NULL;
> struct fdtable *fdt;
>
> spin_lock(>file_lock);
> @@ -632,15 +629,65 @@ int __close_fd(struct
12 matches
Mail list logo
