Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262427AbUCCK30 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:29:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262428AbUCCK30 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:29:26 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([69.30.125.51]:27805 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262427AbUCCK3V (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2004 05:29:21 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 02:29:35 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com To: Ben cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Fw: epoll and fork() In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 914 Lines: 23 On Tue, 2 Mar 2004, Ben wrote: > child can close an inherited fd without affecting the parent), simply > because the only connection a process has with epoll is the file > descriptor. I suppose if you think of epoll_ctl() and epoll_wait() as > write()s and read()s on the file descriptor, then it makes sense that > these operations would affect both processes. Note that if the parent or the child does close an fd, this does not get automatically unregistered from the epoll fd of the other task. An fd can be unregistered from an epoll fd either explicitly with an epoll_ctl() or implicitly when the use count of the underlying file* goes to zero. - Davide - 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/