On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:54:49 -0400 (EDT)
Glenn Fowler <gsf@research.att.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 11:23:07 -0700 David S. Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
> > Glenn Fowler <gsf@research.att.com> wrote:
>
> > > named sockets seem a little heavyweight for this application
>
> > I think it'll be cheaper than unnamed unix sockets and
> > groveling in /proc/*/fd/
>
> > And even if there is a minor performance issue, you'll more than get
> > that back due to the portability gain. :-)
>
> named unix sockets reside in the fs namespace, no?
Right.
> so they must be linked to a dir before use and unlinked after use
> the unlink after use would be particularly tricky for the parent process
> implementing
> cmd <(cmd ...) ...
Hmmm... true.
I honestly don't know what to suggest you use, sorry :(
Is bash totally broken because of all this? Or does the problem only
trigger when using (cmd) subprocesses in a certain way?
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:50 EST