On 06/02/2012 04:47 PM, Brian Harring wrote: > On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 03:50:06PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: >> On 06/02/2012 02:31 PM, Micha?? G??rny wrote: >>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:54:03 -0400 >>> Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>> >>>> # @FUNCTION: redirect_alloc_fd >>>> # @USAGE: <var> <file> [redirection] >>>> # @DESCRIPTION: >>> >>> (...and a lot of code) >>> >>> I may be wrong but wouldn't it be simpler to just stick with a named >>> pipe here? Well, at first glance you wouldn't be able to read exactly >>> one result at a time but is it actually useful? >> >> I'm pretty sure that the pipe has remain constantly open in read mode >> (which can only be done by assigning it a file descriptor). Otherwise, >> there's a race condition that can occur, where a write is lost because >> it's written just before the reader closes the pipe. > > There isn't a race; write side, it'll block once it exceeds pipe buf > size; read side, bash's read functionality is explicitly byte by byte > reads to avoid consuming data it doesn't need.
I've created a little test case and it seems you're right that nothing is lost. -- Thanks, Zac
named_pipe_check_for_lost_write.sh
Description: application/shellscript
