From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 22 13:47:22 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D8D14A13 for ; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:47:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: from current1.whistle.com (current1.whistle.com [207.76.205.22]) by alpo.whistle.com (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA10053; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Peter Jeremy Cc: jwd@unx.sas.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Proposal for new syscall to close files In-Reply-To: <99Jul22.115150est.40336@border.alcanet.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I am not sure I see a need for this syscall... julian On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Peter Jeremy wrote: > "John W. DeBoskey" wrote: > > I like this approach. I have a number of often spawned daemon > >processes that could benefit from this. > I don't suppose that you have any statistics showing that the > for (i = 3; i < getdtablesize(); i++) close(i); > approach would be too slow? > > > For naming convention considerations, I might suggest 'closeall' > >or 'closefdset' or something similar... at least have 'close' in > >name... :-) > > I'm not really keen on the name either - but I couldn't think of > anything better. `closeall' isn't really descriptive since it doesn't > close all the FDs. `closefdset' suggests (to me, anyway) the opposite > behaviour: ie closing the FDs specified in the passed fd_set, instead > of closing everything else. > > Peter > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message