Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Nape Pipes Feedback (WAS: Re: Linux-1.3.81) | Date | Wed, 03 Apr 1996 13:11:24 -0500 | From | Bill Bogstad <> |
| |
>I'm working on a large software system that uses a lot of IPC, mainly >named pipes. It's going to run on Solaris. I was devleoping it there, >but the development machine is resource starved, so after a *very* short >porting job, I am hiding out in my PC, resource fat, developing away. >(Yay for Linux!). > >This is a non-technical reason, of course, but it's pretty serious >for *me*. We need to try to keep up with newer OS "features", such >as those in Solaris, so we can continue to be an easy alternative for >those who are looking for cheaper places to work on code. OTOH, we >also should provide the same welcome to older OS-based developers, too. > >Maybe this should be a kernel config option.
I don't think based on the reasons you state above this would help. Some developers will expect it one way, others another. A per-kernel option means a user can only use one application at a time. If you are going to make it an option, you need to have an EASY way that an end-user can specify it on a per-program basis and a way a program can request it to be a certain way.
A quick hack would be an environment variable checked by libc which would set the option via a system call. A smart developer, would use the same option in their program to set it correctly after the end-user screwed up. A smart user would cover for a dumb developer by setting the environment variable because the developer didn't know that they needed to set the option.
Bill Bogstad bogstad@cs.jhu.edu
| |