Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- From: code17@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:13:26 -0000
Hi ,
Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Your problem seems to be a little different: You wantI don't have to, if the unlink behave in the *wrong* way I decribe in
to know whether any future process will need the name. You
don't need an API, but a crystal ball ...
my post.
When a process find itself _currently_ the last process with an open
fd to the fifo, it can just unlink the fifo if it want. The first
coming process will simply creat a new one if it doesn't find the
fifo's name, all the interactions will happen through the new one. No
lost messages and no interfere. But with the *correct* unlink
semantic, this won't work.
Regards
- code17
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- From: Eric Sosman
- Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- From: code17
- Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- References:
- Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- From: code17
- Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- From: Jens Thoms Toerring
- Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- From: code17
- Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- From: Eric Sosman
- Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- Prev by Date: Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- Next by Date: Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- Previous by thread: Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- Next by thread: Re: Keep a fifo's name until the close of its last connected fd
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
