Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:11:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> To: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: Mel <fbsd.hackers@rachie.is-a-geek.net>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Popen and EVFILT_WRITE question Message-ID: <20080331090902.P89672@knop-beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> In-Reply-To: <86ve33wo1e.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <200803301220.39921.fbsd.hackers@rachie.is-a-geek.net> <86ve33wo1e.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote: DS>Mel <fbsd.hackers@rachie.is-a-geek.net> writes: DS> DS>> EV_SET(&changes[0], fileno(proc), EVFILT_WRITE, EV_ADD|EV_ENABLE, 0, DS>> 0, 0); DS>> EV_SET(&changes[1], fileno(proc), EVFILT_READ, EV_ADD|EV_ENABLE, 0, DS>> 0, 0); DS> DS>This is never going to work. DS> DS>First, the second kevent overrides the first, because they both have the DS>same ident. Why is that so? The man page states that the kevent is identified by the (ident, filter) pair. This would also make more sense, because with bi-directional descriptors (sockets or so) you might want to 'select' on read and write. harti
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080331090902.P89672>