On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 09:59:15PM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote: > I see. It might be telling to recode it using select and see if it behaves > the same.
D'oh! We had it using select before, and rewrote syslogd to use poll(). I might be able to just use an old version of the code. > Of course, it would be best if you could reproduce the situation > with a simple test program (e.g. have a process that writes on a unix > socket every few seconds, nothing writing on the inet socket, and a simple > program that is just a select/poll loop reading from the ready sockets.) You just described what syslogd --no-detach does. There is really nothing else that happens. The process that writes something is logger. I just need one write, it is entirely determinstic. > At a quick glance, the code for both (hurdselect.c) looks the same to me, > but I don't have time right now to examine it too thoroughly. If the > problem with poll does not happen with select, then hurdselect.c is almost > certainly the place that has the bug. If both behave the same, it is > might be in the common code there, or it might be in pflocal. Ah, I see. Maybe it is instructive to see what happens in pflocal, this is simple enough to do. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
