Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-42,: Re: OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX is dynamic?

# Re: OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX is dynamic?

Ulrich Drepper (drepper@cygnus.com)
19 Oct 1998 16:46:31 -0700

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Daniel Quinlan: "correcting one-bit errors in the idle task"
- Previous message: Erik Corry: "Re: Dynamic IP hack (PR#294)"
- In reply to: H.J. Lu: "OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX is dynamic?"

hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu) writes:

> Ulrich, we need to address it in glibc 2. Also it may have impact
> on __fd_set. It should be large enough to cover most if not all
> cases. I am thinking 8192 or even larger. We can do the conversion
> to the kernel fd size at the run-time.

As Andreas said glibc is almost free of select() calls. Only stupid
RPC code is resisting and probably cannot be fixed without changing
the API.

The "dynamic" adaption of the __fd_set size can be very easily done by
adding #ifndef __FD_SETSIZE around the definition in bits/types.h to
allow the user to define this value. This would be trivial.

Unfortunately it is not possible to define __FD_SETSIZE as something like

#define __FD_SETSIZE (__magically_get_value_from_kernel ())

since it must be a compile time constant.

    --
    ---------------.      drepper at gnu.org  ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
    Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
    Cygnus Solutions `--' drepper at cygnus.com   `------------------------

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Daniel Quinlan: "correcting one-bit errors in the idle task"
- Previous message: Erik Corry: "Re: Dynamic IP hack (PR#294)"
- In reply to: H.J. Lu: "OPEN_MAX/FOPEN_MAX is dynamic?"