2013/6/6 Erez D <erez0...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Shachar Shemesh <shac...@shemesh.biz> wrote:
>>
>> On 04/06/13 15:28, Erez D wrote:
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> so i guess if i use unidirectional connection, and the reader does not
>> expect to get an EOF()
>> thank i'm safe.
>>
>> Why are you so keen on doing it wrong?
>>
>> No, you are not safe. If the child process dies because of a segmentation
>> fault (or whatever), the parent will notice this through the EOF received (I
>> am assuming here, since you couldn't be bothered with closing a file
>> descriptor, that you did not install a SIGCHLD handler to monitor for this
>> possibility). This means that should one process die unexpectedly, the other
>> will hang forever.
>
> it's not a matter of being bothered. closing a file has it's implications
>
> 1. close the file for one thread closes for all
thread and fork are 2 very different things, best practice for fork
('full' children, I think everyone understands fork() when you say
child) is to close, when using threads that is I believe not the case.
> 2. what if i want later children using the same pipe, as in all childs write
> to same pipe read by parent...
so the children are all closing the read end and the parent only
closes write, where is the problem?
>
>>
>> Best practices are there for a reason, despite what others here might have
>> you think.
>>
>> Shachar
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-il mailing list
> Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
> http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-il mailing list
Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il
http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
