Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2002/06/30/13:10:24
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 02:00:26PM +0100, Chris January wrote:
>I've just seen this ChangeLog entry, Chris:
>
>2002-06-02 Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>
> Remove unneeded sigproc.h includes throughout.
> * fhandler.h (fhandler_proc::fill_filebuf): Take a pinfo argument.
> * fhandler_proc.cc (fhandler_proc::get_proc_fhandler): Simplify search
> for given pid.
> (fhandler_proc::readdir): Assume that pid exists if it shows up in the
> winpid list.
> * fhandler_process.cc (fhandler_process::open): Simplify search for
> given pid. Call fill_filebuf with pinfo argument.
> (fhandler_process::fill_filebuf): Pass pinfo here and assume that it
> exists.
> * pinfo.h (pinfo::remember): Define differently if sigproc.h is not
> included.
>
>IMHO, these changes need to be reverted. fhandler_base::fill_filebuf is
>virtual. If you add the pinfo parameter to fhandler_process::fill_filebuf,
>then you are defining a new function, not overriding the one in
>fhandler_base. Hence, /proc semantics whereby the file contents are
>refreshed on an lseek are broken.
I'll certainly consider changes, but your previous method of searching
the whole process table for a given pid when there already is a method
available for directly getting to the pid itself was flawed. You used
this technique throughout your proc code and I thought it demonstrated
an unfamiliarity with the way that the pinfo class was supposed to work,
so I fixed it.
I will put back the pinfo pointer in the fhandler_process class but I
don't think that the entire checkin evidenced by the ChangeLog above
needs to be reverted.
cgf
- Raw text -