➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients Christophe.Devriese, gregory.p.smith, nadeem.vawda, neologix, pitrou
Date 2011-05-25.16:53:15
SpamBayes Score 1.2191142e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1306342395.92.0.512874319785.issue12107@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content 
> So, SOCK_CLOEXEC is available.
> Note that I don't like the idea of falling back to FD_CLOEXEC since
> it's not atomic, and some people might rely on this.
> Can we close this issue?

Well, this is apparently a feature request for socketserver.TCPServer.
I don't see any problem in adding a best-effort option to add the cloexec flag, possibly atomically, and fall back on FD_CLOEXEC.

People who "rely on this" can only do it if their system supports it anyway.
History
Date User Action Args
2011-05-25 16:53:15pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, gregory.p.smith, nadeem.vawda, neologix, Christophe.Devriese
2011-05-25 16:53:15pitrousetmessageid: <1306342395.92.0.512874319785.issue12107@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-05-25 16:53:15pitroulinkissue12107 messages
2011-05-25 16:53:15pitroucreate