| 1 |
On 10/06/13 00:52, Greg Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Alan Hourihane <alanh@×××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> From what I can see it's down to bi-directional read/write on a FIFO. |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Typically a FIFO expects a reader and a writer (it's just a filesystem |
| 6 |
>> PIPE). |
| 7 |
>> Therefore we should be using two file descriptors, one for read and one |
| 8 |
>> for write. Not one file descriptor and using read/write. That's the |
| 9 |
>> Linux'ism |
| 10 |
>> we're talking about here. |
| 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 |
Fixed for my OS, and it still works on Linux. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Patches uploaded. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Alan. |
Archives