Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:39:47PM -0000, Phil Barrett wrote: > > The problem is that after you call (*taskinferface->ObtainExclusiveAccess)() > > a fork()ed thread is then denied access because the first thread has > > exclusive access. > > I thought fork creates new processes not threads? > > I don't see how to workaround such problems in SANE. > > I don't even see how to workaround it in libusb if there is no way to > regain acces in the child process. > > Isn't there any way to make sure that childrens of the current process > can access the already opened devices? > > Otherwise I guess Mac OS X and SANE is a no-go at least for some > backends.
<rant>well, the Apple folks sometimes have crazy ideas. Think about these unusable round mice sold with older IMacs.</rant> Theoretically, it could be possible to replace the fork call with somethink like "sane_fork". For sane (i.e., non-darwin) operating systems, this function would just call fork; for Macos, sane_fork could additionally duplicate/reopen all necessary, hmmm, "non-filedescriptors" which are required by the child process to access the scanner. The necessary information could be collected by sanei_scsi_open or sanei_usb_open. Abel
