<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8 Jun 2001, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > Modified: server mpm_common.c
> > > > Log:
> > > > the input handle to the pod (used by child processes) needs to be
>non-blocking
> > >
> > > Shouldn't the child process be using the output handle to the pod? The
> > > parent uses input to write. I'm pretty sure I fixed this bug last night
> > > by switching when we used pod_in and when we used pod_out.
> >
> > I guess you're talking about a change you didn't check in?
>
> Nope, it was definately checked in.
>
> Revision 1.51 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs] , Fri Jun 8
> 04:55:44 2001 UTC (16 hours, 41 minutes ago) by rbb
> Branch: MAIN
> Changes since 1.50: +2 -2 lines
> Diff to previous 1.50 (colored) It helps to write to the input side of the
> pipe, and read from the output side.
>
> > Obviously "input" and "output" can't be from the perspective of both
> > parent and child. Feel free to change the perspective accordingly.
>
> Input and output have nothing to do with parent and child relationship. A
> pipe is a uni-directional communication medium. The parent uses the input
> side, because it accepts input. The child uses the output side, because
> it produces output. I can't think of a good reason to use non-blocking
> I/O on the input side. If anything, I think this is a bad idea. If the
> pipe is full, we will just return since we are using non-blocking I/O now.
> If we back-out this change and use blocking I/O, then we will sit until
> there is space in the pipe.
I see what you're saying. (we were blocked in pipe read before I made
the change and processing requests afterwords... no explanation...)
backed out...
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
