| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Alan Hourihane <alanh@×××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> From what I can see it's down to bi-directional read/write on a FIFO. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Typically a FIFO expects a reader and a writer (it's just a filesystem |
| 5 |
> PIPE). |
| 6 |
> Therefore we should be using two file descriptors, one for read and one |
| 7 |
> for write. Not one file descriptor and using read/write. That's the |
| 8 |
> Linux'ism |
| 9 |
> we're talking about here. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Yes, ACK that entirely. However an argument could be made that |
| 12 |
because BSD, Linux, and everything else with any significant user-base |
| 13 |
have arrived at sufficiently similar non-POSIX behaviors, Gentoo's |
| 14 |
able to get away with it. The matter has been discussed, and a |
| 15 |
consensus was reached among the devs that it was an OK compromise. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think if you re-coded the multiprocessing stuff to work the same, |
| 18 |
without exploiting this platform quirk or making a big mess of the |
| 19 |
code, and posted your patches to your bug (and a separate one for |
| 20 |
portage) you could probably get your patches in. But just filing a |
| 21 |
bug and expecting someone else to fix it is probably not going to |
| 22 |
work, IMO. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-gmt |
Archives