Re: FIFOs again

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 24,  2:34pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: FIFOs again
}
} Andrej wrote:
} > > Yes, I got the same. Real nasty. One possibility is "dummy open" in
} > > parent. The child hangs because it tries to open FIFO without
} > > counterpart. Parent can simply open it and then close when child exits
} > > or we're done with current commmand (it currently have to delete FIFO
} > > anyway).
} > >
} > 
} > Actually, it seems to be possible to immediately close it. The following
} > trivial change to getproc() (marked with >>>>>>) seems to do the trick
} > (no more hung processes).
} 
} I don't think this does the right thing.  Consider <(...).

I don't think there's a simple fix to getproc() that will handle this.
Some work is going to have to be done only when both the child process
from inside the <(...) and the one supposedly reading it have exited.
That means recording that information somewhere and dealing with it in
handler() or in the job table code.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com