Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 20 Mar 2005 23:59:34 -0600 (CST)
From:      Zera William Holladay <zholla1@uic.edu>
To:        Matthew Hagerty <matthew@digitalstratum.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Causing a process switch to test a theory.
Message-ID:  <Pine.GSO.4.58.0503202314100.3910@icarus.cc.uic.edu>
In-Reply-To: <423DE326.9000203@digitalstratum.com>
References:  <423DE326.9000203@digitalstratum.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If you post the section(s) of code in question, then you'll probably
elicit some responses.  PIPE_BUF is a POSIX defined minimum, so you might
grep for sections of code that contain fpathconf(*, _PC_PIPE_BUF) to
determine if the programmers took this into consideration.  At least
you'll be able to follow the logical flow of the program from fpathconf()
forward.

Further, if you do some fancy programming (like preempting a process
unnaturally) to determine if there is an error in this particular aspect
of Apache, then you'll also have to show that you have not inflicted the
error too, which will probably be harder than what you set out to solve or
figure out.

Good luck, Zera Holladay



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.58.0503202314100.3910>