On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:48:29 +0100 Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cyg...@cygwin.com> wrote:
> I'm inclined to apply this patch. I think using PeekNamedPipe this way > is pretty nice, albeit it's not atomic. It might be a good idea to add > an acquire/release_output_mutex bracket, even if that doesn't help for > cases in which a process holding a master fd crashes hard. > > Since you suggested it, do you have another idea? Nothing in particular. > Off the top of my head what we could do: > > - Either just set input_available_event always, unconditionally. But > that probably requires to change fhandler_pty_slave::read as well. The modification of fhandler_pty_slave::read() will be probably not so small. To use PeekNamedPipe() or NtQueryObject() is better, I suppose. > - Or, use NtQueryObject to fetch the handle count of from_master (see > flock.cc function get_obj_handle_count()). If the handle count is > one, we're the last process holding the handle and then we set > input_available_event. But I'm not sure if it's really worth it. The > PeekNamedPipe usage looks rather ok to me. When NtQueryObject() is used, aim is clearer than using PeekNamedPipe(). However, either is OK. Please choose one which you like. > Oh, btw. Please always add the ChangeLog entries as plain text, not as > diff. ChangeLog diffs usually don't apply without manual intervention. Thank you for your advice. Next time, I will do so. -- Takashi Yano <takashi.y...@nifty.ne.jp> -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
