Something I haven't heard explained on this thread yet is why the
change would be worthwhile in terms of cost (to e.g. the GNU project)
vs. benefit (to e.g. users).
The cost is, I hope, reasonably obvious:
- the maintenance burden of the extra code and maintaining both
fork/exec and posix_spawn i
On 9/7/18 7:24 AM, Barath Aron wrote:
> Any thoughts on posix_spawn()?
It seems to be possible now with the ...addfchdir() function for find/exec.c.
In xargs, the error detection is a bit more detailed, so this might become a
bit more complicated.
In general, I think the code will have to be doub
> Eric Blake wrote:
> > Although it gets prohibitively expensive in a multi-threaded process to
> > ensure proper locking between all threads that might want to use
> > posix_spawn
>
> Why locking? posix_spawn uses fork() - the vfork() optimization is not
> possible in the case when there are file
On 09/08/2018 02:24 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 09/08/18 00:15, Eric Blake wrote:
Adding posix_spawn_file_actions_addchdir() is what avoids the need to
lock in the parent, because now you do:
A thought WRT the naming: while ..._addopen() can be called for more file
descriptors, there's only
On 09/08/18 00:15, Eric Blake wrote:
> Adding posix_spawn_file_actions_addchdir() is what avoids the need to
> lock in the parent, because now you do:
A thought WRT the naming: while ..._addopen() can be called for more file
descriptors, there's only one working directory for the spawned process.
On 09/07/2018 05:06 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
Although it gets prohibitively expensive in a multi-threaded process to
ensure proper locking between all threads that might want to use
posix_spawn
Why locking? posix_spawn uses fork() - the vfork() optimization is not
possible in
Eric Blake wrote:
> Although it gets prohibitively expensive in a multi-threaded process to
> ensure proper locking between all threads that might want to use
> posix_spawn
Why locking? posix_spawn uses fork() - the vfork() optimization is not
possible in the case when there are file actions -,
On 09/07/2018 02:17 PM, Barath Aron wrote:
In fact, it's so useful that I just proposed that POSIX standardize
it, as well as fchdir:
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1208
Good to hear, I'm looking forward to this.
It seems you have a typo in it:
> int posix_spawn_file_actions_addch
On 9/7/18 8:59 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 09/07/2018 09:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
Adding gnulib:
On 09/06/2018 11:37 PM, Barath Aron wrote:
On 9/7/18 4:54 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Couldn't you change the w.d. to the correct target, spawn, and then
change the w.d. back?
Yes, one could do thi
On 09/07/2018 09:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
Adding gnulib:
On 09/06/2018 11:37 PM, Barath Aron wrote:
On 9/7/18 4:54 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Couldn't you change the w.d. to the correct target, spawn, and then
change the w.d. back?
Yes, one could do this.
Although it gets prohibitively expen
Adding gnulib:
On 09/06/2018 11:37 PM, Barath Aron wrote:
On 9/7/18 4:54 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Couldn't you change the w.d. to the correct target, spawn, and then
change the w.d. back?
Yes, one could do this.
Alternatively, one could direct the spawned process to run a program
that would
On 9/7/18 7:19 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 09/07/18 06:37, Barath Aron wrote:
Alternatively, one could direct the spawned process to run a program
that would set the working directory to, say, the first argument, and
then use the remaining arguments to run/fork/spawn the target program.
Do y
On 09/07/18 06:37, Barath Aron wrote:
>> Alternatively, one could direct the spawned process to run a program
>> that would set the working directory to, say, the first argument, and
>> then use the remaining arguments to run/fork/spawn the target program.
>
> Do you know systems that have this pr
On 9/7/18 4:54 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Couldn't you change the w.d. to the correct target, spawn, and then
change the w.d. back?
Yes, one could do this.
Alternatively, one could direct the spawned process to run a program
that would set the working directory to, say, the first argument, and
t
Tavian Barnes writes:
> One thing you'll probably run into is that posix_spawn() has no interface
> for running the spawned process in a new working directory. That makes
> implementing -execdir/-okdir somewhat awkward.
Couldn't you change the w.d. to the correct target, spawn, and then
change t
> Hello again,
>
> I intended to introduce the use of the posix_spawn to the findutils. The
> Threos OS ( https://threos.io ), as you might know, does not support fork,
> but it has posix_spawn. My plan is the following: I write the code that
> implement the process spawning with the posix_spawn, a
16 matches
Mail list logo
