Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 2 Mar 2004 10:44:40 -0500 | From | Mark Mielke <> | Subject | Re: Fw: epoll and fork() |
| |
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:38:04PM +0000, Ben wrote: > I was thinking that epoll should behave like a file descriptor (i.e. a > child can close an inherited fd without affecting the parent), simply > because the only connection a process has with epoll is the file > descriptor. I suppose if you think of epoll_ctl() and epoll_wait() as > write()s and read()s on the file descriptor, then it makes sense that > these operations would affect both processes. > It still feels 'wrong' though :)
If you read from a file descriptor in one process, the file pointer is moved, and the read from the other process will not get the same bytes twice.
Seems 'right', although inconvenient might be a better conclusion than unintuitive... :-)
I wonder if this 'feature' could be taken advantage of somehow? One could monitor the state of a file descriptor without having access to the file descriptor... Hmm...
mark
-- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |