From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp3.akamai.com (vwall2.sanmateo.corp.akamai.com [172.23.1.72]) by smtp3.akamai.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j531NdRt005373 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:23:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <429FB11B.3DC2EEF3@akamai.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 18:23:39 -0700 From: Prasanna Meda MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch] scm: fix scm_fp_list allocation problem References: <200506012227.PAA05624@allur.sanmateo.akamai.com> <20050602161341.3d94f17b.akpm@osdl.org> <429FA5D4.87FD9B6C@akamai.com> <20050602175327.6e257d94.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Andrew Morton wrote: > Prasanna Meda wrote: > > > > > > > > Given that you need to patch the kernel to support larger SCM_MAX_FD, why > > > not add this patch at the same time, keep it out of the main tree? > > > > Can do. > > Ideally every fd openable should be passed over. I work towards that goal > > and submit again. > > No. > > I meant that given that you are already patching your personal kernel to make > SCM_MAX_FD larger, why don't you simultaneously apply this patch? > In other words: why does the kernel.org kernel need this patch? I agreed that I can apply both the changes locally. kernel.org does not get direct benifit. It is merely benificial to people who wants to use more fds. I just thought changing SCM_MAX_FD is easier for them than changing macro and adding code . Thanks, Prasanna. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org