Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 19:15:13 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: changes to fhandler_process.cc from 02/06/2002 should be reverted
Message-ID: <20020630231513.GA4728@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <00a801c22036$1a7456b0$0100a8c0 AT advent02> <20020630171026 DOT GB32201 AT redhat DOT com> <01d901c22084$b7552e20$0100a8c0 AT advent02> <20020630223718 DOT GA3808 AT redhat DOT com> <002d01c2208a$11e8cb80$0100a8c0 AT advent02>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <002d01c2208a$11e8cb80$0100a8c0@advent02>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 12:01:29AM +0100, Chris January wrote:
>>Ok, but you can't keep the shared memory for every process open for the
>>duration of the life of a fhandler_process.  I don't know how to deal
>>with this but using up lots of resources isn't the way to do it.
>
>Agreed, but the current code in CVS will actually crash when lseek is
>called.  Incidentally, I believe that line 158 in fhandler_process.cc
>can be removed.  My preferred solution to this would be to save the pid
>as the original code did and add pinfo p (pid) in fill_filebuf.

Yeah, I'd already put that back but actually, now that I think of it,
keeping this open may actually be what we want to do.  Keeping it open
will ensure that the shared memory will be around so the process will
essentially stay around as long as you have the shared memory open...
sort of.

If I understand the way this works, there will normally only be one of
these open at any time, anyway, so resource usage is not that great.

I don't know if there are other issues with this or not, though.

cgf