Re: Nape Pipes Feedback (WAS: Re: Linux-1.3.81)

Bill Bogstad (bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu)
Wed, 03 Apr 1996 13:11:24 -0500

>I'm working on a large software system that uses a lot of IPC, mainly
>named pipes. It's going to run on Solaris. I was devleoping it there,
>but the development machine is resource starved, so after a *very* short
>porting job, I am hiding out in my PC, resource fat, developing away.
>(Yay for Linux!).
>
>This is a non-technical reason, of course, but it's pretty serious
>for *me*. We need to try to keep up with newer OS "features", such
>as those in Solaris, so we can continue to be an easy alternative for
>those who are looking for cheaper places to work on code. OTOH, we
>also should provide the same welcome to older OS-based developers, too.
>
>Maybe this should be a kernel config option.

I don't think based on the reasons you state above this would help.
Some developers will expect it one way, others another. A per-kernel option
means a user can only use one application at a time. If you are going to
make it an option, you need to have an EASY way that an end-user can specify
it on a per-program basis and a way a program can request it to be a certain
way.

A quick hack would be an environment variable checked by libc which
would set the option via a system call. A smart developer, would use the
same option in their program to set it correctly after the end-user screwed
up. A smart user would cover for a dumb developer by setting the environment
variable because the developer didn't know that they needed to set the
option.

Bill Bogstad
bogstad@cs.jhu.edu