On 01/22/2017 04:23 PM, Eliot Moss wrote: > On 1/22/2017 3:19 PM, David Balažic wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Is this a correct pipe behavior? >> >> $ echo booo | tee >(md5sum --tag) >/dev/null >> MD5 (-) = 9c8b79bdf79ef0ee73a77b8d36d27a2d >> >> $ echo booo | tee >(md5sum --tag) | cat >/dev/null > > Here's what I think happens, even if it is a bit counter-intuitive: > >>(...) creates a subprocess, whose input comes from some kind > of pipe or socket, and tee is presented with a filename it can > use to write to that socket. > > The *output* of the >(...) subprocess is hooked up to what is > known to be the output of tee *at the time the subprocess is > created*. This happens *before* any > redirections are done.
Rather, all >() and > redirections are performed in left-to-right order. But you are correct that the second >/dev/null is overwriting the stdout that was originally given by >(md5sum), and therefore tee is NOT writing to the md5sum process. > > However, in the case of the | pipe, that plumbing is set up > *before* the >(...) construct is acted on. Also correct. Mixing >() and | is usually not what you want, as you are no longer writing to the pipeline. > > Note that you could do >(md5sum --tag >whatever) if you want > to specifically control the output of md5sum. > > I am sure someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I've > missed anything important here :-) ... You got the gist of it. Order matters, and specifying more than one stdout (by any mix of >, >(), or |) is generally not what you want. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
