Re: Fw: epoll and fork()

[Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc>]

On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:38:04PM +0000, Ben wrote:
> I was thinking that epoll should behave like a file descriptor (i.e. a
> child can close an inherited fd without affecting the parent), simply
> because the only connection a process has with epoll is the file
> descriptor. I suppose if you think of epoll_ctl() and epoll_wait() as
> write()s and read()s on the file descriptor, then it makes sense that
> these operations would affect both processes.
> It still feels 'wrong' though :)

If you read from a file descriptor in one process, the file pointer is
moved, and the read from the other process will not get the same bytes
twice.

Seems 'right', although inconvenient might be a better conclusion than
unintuitive... :-)

I wonder if this 'feature' could be taken advantage of somehow? One could
monitor the state of a file descriptor without having access to the file
descriptor... Hmm...

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/