Re: CVS commit: src/sys/kern

[Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>]

That's a good point. Should I revert to something similar like before,
or do you have a better idea?

Thanks,

christos

> On May 5, 2019, at 9:09 PM, Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> wrote:
> 
>    Date:        Sun, 5 May 2019 16:38:04 -0400
>    From:        Christos Zoulas <christos%zoulas.com@localhost>
>    Message-ID:  <41FB59A5-C9E0-4392-BD5C-508E5B80E572%zoulas.com@localhost>
> 
>  | I did not want to make it smaller, but yes,
>  | you are right I will remove the slop.
>  |
>  | > On May 5, 2019, at 4:30 PM, matthew green <mrg%eterna.com.au@localhost> wrote:
> 
>  | > is the old value useful now?  i think your checking against
>  | > the current limit seems totally valid and obsoletes the old
>  | > check which was simply some slop over open fds.
> 
> It might matter in a case where a process has lots open files and
> then sets its limit lower (and yes, I have done that while testing
> that EMFILE errors get handled correctly...)  In such a case it
> might want to poll more files than the limit allows.
> 
> I also don't believe there's any restriction on including the same
> fd more than once (with diffent bits set in events probably) - perhaps
> might happen in threaded code when one thread is reading from an fd,
> and a diffenent one is writing to it (probably a net connection or tty).
> 
> What would probably be more useful would be to remove the limit, or
> simply set a reasonable one, and document it.   Its relationship to
> open file counts is nebulous at best.
> 
> kre