> the application of a close event. What can I say, "the fd formerly known > as X" is now gone? It would be incorrect to say that "fd X was closed", > since X no longer refers to anything, and the application may have reused > that fd for another file. Which is precisely why you need to know where in the chain of events this happened. Otherwise if I see 'read on fd 5' 'read on fd 5' How do I know which read is for which fd in the multithreaded case > As for the multi-thread case, this would be a bug; if one thread closes > the descriptor, the other thread is going to get an EBADF when it goes > to perform the read. Another thread may already have reused the fd - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Terry Lambert
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Terry Lambert
- RE: kqueue microbenchmark results David Schwartz
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Jamie Lokier
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Alfred Perlstein
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Gideon Glass
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Jonathan Lemon
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Alan Cox
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Alfred Perlstein
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Jonathan Lemon
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Alan Cox
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Alfred Perlstein
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Dan Kegel
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Alfred Perlstein
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Terry Lambert
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Dan Kegel
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results Terry Lambert
- Re: kqueue microbenchmark results James Lewis Nance