On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Okay -- I'll look at it some more. I am however loathe to drop the
> term open file description, because POSIX uses, as well as a number of
> other Linux man pages by now.
Heh, POSIX. Now doesn't take a genius to see that "file description" and
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Davide Libenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
> > Following up after quite some time:
> >
> > Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Jan 25, 2008 12:57 AM, Davide Libenzi
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Following up after quite some time:
>
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> >
> >> On Jan 25, 2008 12:57 AM, Davide Libenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >>>
>
Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) I did a
>
> s/internal kernel handle/open file description/
>
> since that is the POSIX term for the internal handle.
>
> b) It seems to me that you text doesn't quite make the point explicit
> enough. I've tried to rewrite it; could you please
Following up after quite some time:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
>> On Jan 25, 2008 12:57 AM, Davide Libenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:10:18PM +, Davide Libenzi
Following up after quite some time:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008 12:57 AM, Davide Libenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:10:18PM +, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Fri, 18
Michael Kerrisk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) I did a
s/internal kernel handle/open file description/
since that is the POSIX term for the internal handle.
b) It seems to me that you text doesn't quite make the point explicit
enough. I've tried to rewrite it; could you please check:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Following up after quite some time:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008 12:57 AM, Davide Libenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Davide Libenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Following up after quite some time:
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008 12:57 AM, Davide Libenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
Okay -- I'll look at it some more. I am however loathe to drop the
term open file description, because POSIX uses, as well as a number of
other Linux man pages by now.
Heh, POSIX. Now doesn't take a genius to see that file description and
file
On Jan 25, 2008 12:57 AM, Davide Libenzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:10:18PM +, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I just came across a
On Jan 25, 2008 12:57 AM, Davide Libenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:10:18PM +, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Hi,
I just came across a strange behavior of epoll
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:10:18PM +, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I just came across a strange behavior of epoll that seems to
> > > contradict the documentation. Here is
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:10:18PM +, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just came across a strange behavior of epoll that seems to
> > contradict the documentation. Here is what happens:
> >
> > * I have two processes P1 and P2, P1
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:10:18PM +, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Hi,
I just came across a strange behavior of epoll that seems to
contradict the documentation. Here is what happens:
* I have two processes P1 and P2, P1 accept()s
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 09:10:18PM +, Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Hi,
I just came across a strange behavior of epoll that seems to
contradict the documentation. Here is what happens:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just came across a strange behavior of epoll that seems to
> contradict the documentation. Here is what happens:
>
> * I have two processes P1 and P2, P1 accept()s connections, and send the
> resulting file descriptors to P2 through
Hi,
I just came across a strange behavior of epoll that seems to
contradict the documentation. Here is what happens:
* I have two processes P1 and P2, P1 accept()s connections, and send the
resulting file descriptors to P2 through a unix socket.
* P2 registers the received socket in his
Hi,
I just came across a strange behavior of epoll that seems to
contradict the documentation. Here is what happens:
* I have two processes P1 and P2, P1 accept()s connections, and send the
resulting file descriptors to P2 through a unix socket.
* P2 registers the received socket in his
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Hi,
I just came across a strange behavior of epoll that seems to
contradict the documentation. Here is what happens:
* I have two processes P1 and P2, P1 accept()s connections, and send the
resulting file descriptors to P2 through a unix
20 matches
Mail list logo