| To: | davem@xxxxxxxxxx, gsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: kernel bug in socketpair() |
| From: | Glenn Fowler <gsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 23 Jul 2003 14:54:49 -0400 (EDT) |
| Cc: | dgk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Organization: | AT&T Labs Research |
| References: | <200307231428.KAA15254@raptor.research.att.com> <20030723074615.25eea776.davem@redhat.com> <200307231656.MAA69129@raptor.research.att.com> <20030723100043.18d5b025.davem@redhat.com> <200307231724.NAA90957@raptor.research.att.com> <20030723103135.3eac4cd2.davem@redhat.com> <200307231814.OAA74344@raptor.research.att.com> <20030723112307.5b8ae55c.davem@redhat.com> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?
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 ...) ...
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [bernie@develer.com: Kernel 2.6 size increase], Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [bernie@develer.com: Kernel 2.6 size increase], Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: kernel bug in socketpair(), David S. Miller |
| Next by Thread: | Re: kernel bug in socketpair(), David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |