On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Eelco Dolstra
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 18/12/14 17:32, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
> > Thus, I think Nix commit 49fe95 (which introduces monitor-fd.hh, which
> > uses std::thread just for convenience) should be reverted, along with
> > the subsequent commits to that file;
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
> Hmm, I’m not convinced about the whole threads-for-convenience approach
> à la Java. (I think the ideal is a single-threaded event loop; of
> course we want to avoid IoC, and this is where FRP or monads come in.)
>
It is instead for t
Hi,
On 19/12/14 19:41, Shea Levy wrote:
> Can't you unshare in the parent then setns back after fork?
In a multi-threaded program, that sounds incredibly racy :-)
(Though it's not clear to me whether unshare() works on the current process or
the current thread. Manpage says process...)
--
Eel
Can't you unshare in the parent then setns back after fork?
> On Dec 19, 2014, at 18:20, Eelco Dolstra wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 18/12/14 17:32, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
>> Thus, I think Nix commit 49fe95 (which introduces monitor-fd.hh, which
>> uses std::thread just for convenience) should b
