On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 09:10:21 -0300 Werner Almesberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > exquisite-write -wait 20 > > > > i.e. - waiting for exquisite to come up and have its socket ready for > > writing. > > Hmm, it this "wait 20 seconds, then try" or is it "try and time out > if you didn't get through within 20 seconds" ? timeout. it keeps trying every 0.1 seconds for up to 20 - then gives up. exquisite opens a unix socket for communication andit's waiting for the socket to be alive and kicking. > If it's the former, and what you're really concerned about is socket > creation, perhaps the following device would work: > > - add a --background option > - in main, create the socket, then fork if background is set > - detach the foreground process > > That way, you're guaranteed to have a socket you can open once the > (foreground half of the) program has terminated. yeah - but that i don't think will help much - the every 0.1 second check isn't a problem - or shouldnt be impact-wise. it ends up being the exact same thing just rolled into the initial process. it's cleaner for me code-wise not ot do the fork thing... but i do get your point :) what i need to do is find out why it takes 6 seconds to init and have the socket up and working. there's a lot of paging going on there. i wonder if its the paging in of shared libs mostly, or something more insidious... > - Werner -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
