Message-ID: <4044A764.1030304@nortelnetworks.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 10:25:24 -0500
From: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Ben <linux-kernel-junk-email@slimyhorror.com>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: epoll and fork()
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403020654080.24044-100000@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1116
Lines: 28

Davide Libenzi wrote:

> Sorry but what behaviour do you expect by unregistering an fd pushed by 
> the parent from inside a child? Events work exactly the same. Since the 
> context is shared, events are delivered only once.

For principle of least surprise, I would expect that the refcounts would 
be bumped up so that the child could deregister without affecting the 
parent.

Closing the fd in the child doesn't affect the fd in the parent. 
Removing an fd from an fd_set in the child doesn't affect the fd_set in 
the parent.  Unregistering an fd from an epoll set in the child 
shouldn't affect the parent either.

Chris

-- 
Chris Friesen                    | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks                  | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue              | fax:  (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada        | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/