Ah, hmm... I've checked FreeBSD and it is the same, EPIPE, I don't have
a NetBSD box but I might be able to set one up tomorrow night if nobody
with one speaks up.
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 09:16:41PM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Nicholas Marriott
> wrote:
> >
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Nicholas Marriott
wrote:
> Ah, hmm... I've checked FreeBSD and it is the same, EPIPE, I don't have
> a NetBSD box but I might be able to set one up tomorrow night if nobody
> with one speaks up.
I'm asking around; I'll let you know if anybody tells me they can test
Le Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:23:32PM -0500, Nick Mathewson ecrivait :
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Nicholas Marriott
> I'm asking around; I'll let you know if anybody tells me they can test NetBSD.
$ ./a
pipefd[0] = {4,5}
pipefd[1] = {6,7}
pipefd[2] = {8,9}
pipefd[3] = {10,11}
1 events:
9: fi
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Frank Denis wrote:
> Le Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 03:23:32PM -0500, Nick Mathewson ecrivait :
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Nicholas Marriott
>> I'm asking around; I'll let you know if anybody tells me they can test
>> NetBSD.
>
> $ ./a
> pipefd[0] = {4,5}
> pipefd
I'd be inclined to go with 3 too, it would be nice if all were
consistent as can be in the long run to avoid similar problems later.
It looks like NetBSD has returned EBADF here (sys_pipe.c:pipe_kqfilter)
since 2002 but it's a pretty easy change, maybe they'd like to make it
consistent. It sort of
Hi, Nick,
Thanks for your reply. It's very helpful.
Thanks and Regards,
Wenliang
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Wenliang Zhang wrote:
> > Hi, all,
>
> Personally, my first approach would be to do it with something closer
> to a re
