Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932066AbWEPPKY (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 May 2006 11:10:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932075AbWEPPKY (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 May 2006 11:10:24 -0400 Received: from mailout06.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.19]:33745 "EHLO mailout06.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932073AbWEPPKK (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 May 2006 11:10:10 -0400 Message-ID: <4469EB4B.6000108@t-online.de> Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 17:10:03 +0200 From: Bernd Schmidt User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060420) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , luke.yang@analog.com, gerg@snapgear.com Subject: Re: Please revert git commit 1ad3dcc0 References: <4469B63B.6000502@t-online.de> <20060516065848.13028f9f.akpm@osdl.org> <4469E1AF.7040908@t-online.de> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ID: XVIkz4ZQZe-aMa9126OMrIrGHTPkYMCrf-Da2alUYH3nq4pHOlW+6e X-TOI-MSGID: 093e442e-8ddb-465c-958a-787935b51ba8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1373 Lines: 34 Linus Torvalds wrote: > Side note: this would be a valid argument, except it's not always true. > I'm not sure why Luke wanted the fd in the first place, though, and > whether we want it. The only reason was a failed LTP testcase which fills up the FD table and then called exec. > Some loaders may actually want the fd value, see for example themisc > loader and MISC_FMT_OPEN_BINARY, and the ELF loader _does_ actually do it > for the (interpreter_type == INTERPRETER_AOUT) case. The flat loader does not need a FD value. >> Before the change, we didn't allocate or install a file descriptor, hence >> there wasn't any reason to return EMFILE. The spec at >> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/exec.html >> doesn't list EMFILE as a possible error. > > Totally irrelevant. I think it is relevant: if the spec does not require it, and the flat loader does not need the FD, then there is no reason to return EMFILE. Both conditions are true in this case. If the spec did require it, then that would be an argument that the LTP testcase is valid, and for keeping the original patch. Bernd - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/