changes to fhandler_process.cc from 02/06/2002 should be reverted

Christopher Faylor cgf@redhat.com
Sun Jun 30 17:15:00 GMT 2002


On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 12:56:08AM +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.
>I'll have to see what happens on Linux when a process goes away and it has
>/proc entries open.
>
>I have a patch for fhandler_registry.cc that I am working on at the moment
>and will probably post tomorrow. It fixes a few bugs, but it also adds a
>boolean return value to fill_filebuf which means that the test to see if a
>process exists can be moved to that function. This is the way things are
>with that patch as it stands, anyway.

Sounds good to me.  I was thinking that it would be nice to do the test
there.  Then the pinfo field could be removed from fhandler_process
entirely.

cgf



More information about the Cygwin-developers mailing list