Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 03 Mar 2000 23:24:55 +0100 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: [patch] updates for the pipe code |
| |
Richard Gooch wrote: > > Hm. This is a problem with your patch, right? Yes, I introduced a race in my initial patch.
> What about the problem I > reported back on 16-FEB? It's still happening with 2.3.48. The problem > does not occur with 2.2.14. > > > Hi, all. I've been noticing odd behaviour with named pipes under > > recent 2.3.x kernels (at least since 2.3.36 and possibly before). > > > > If you open a FIFO with O_RDONLY and then call read(2), and then > > another process writes to the FIFO, the read(2) call doesn't return. A > > subsequent writer process does wake up the reader, however. > > > > Has anybody else noticed this behaviour? > > I've noticed this problem on UP and SMP systems. It doesn't always > happen, but it *does* happen :-( > Hmm. I didn't notice a bug when I rewrote the locking. Do you have a test application? Is someone using O_NONBLOCK, which end of the fifo is opened first?
-- Manfred
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |