From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Nov 29 14:59:34 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABD016A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:59:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C337043FB1
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:59:33 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id hATMxX1G012304;
	Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:59:33 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:59:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
In-Reply-To: <20031129211251.GV35957@elvis.mu.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10311291758410.10943-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] please review. file descriptor passing for libc_r.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:59:34 -0000

[re@ removed]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003, Alfred Perlstein wrote:

> * Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> [031129 12:21] wrote:
> > 
> > Descriptor's passed can't be closed because the uthread kernel does this:
> 
> The weird part is that i'm doing a sendfile(2) using the descriptors
> and it appears that sendfile does the FD_LOCK thing on the descriptors
> so... ?

It should be fine in that case.  Is it not?

-- 
Dan Eischen