Richard Gooch wrote:
>
> Hm. This is a problem with your patch, right?
Yes, I introduced a race in my initial patch.
> What about the problem I
> reported back on 16-FEB? It's still happening with 2.3.48. The problem
> does not occur with 2.2.14.
>
> > Hi, all. I've been noticing odd behaviour with named pipes under
> > recent 2.3.x kernels (at least since 2.3.36 and possibly before).
> >
> > If you open a FIFO with O_RDONLY and then call read(2), and then
> > another process writes to the FIFO, the read(2) call doesn't return. A
> > subsequent writer process does wake up the reader, however.
> >
> > Has anybody else noticed this behaviour?
>
> I've noticed this problem on UP and SMP systems. It doesn't always
> happen, but it *does* happen :-(
>
Hmm.
I didn't notice a bug when I rewrote the locking.
Do you have a test application? Is someone using O_NONBLOCK, which end
of the fifo is opened first?
-- Manfred- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 21:00:15 EST