From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aki M Nyrhinen <anyrhine@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] i say, this is interesting
Message-ID: <20030627172615.GA7666@cs.helsinki.fi>
References: <20030627151350.GA7466@cs.helsinki.fi> <b9c3a1abd751181d5d1d547685bb5192@mightycheese.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b9c3a1abd751181d5d1d547685bb5192@mightycheese.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:26:15 +0300
Topicbox-Message-UUID: df151fc2-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 08:24:30AM -0700, rob pike, esq. wrote:
> > I don't want to make guesses why exactly every
> > second character is lost (other's know, for sure), but it
> > seems this isn't neccessarily a bug at all.
> oh, that's easy.  two processes reading the same file,
> each one byte at a time.  what would be the result of
> your kernel implementation under those circumstances?

An impossible to find non-deterministic malfunction in the future,
of course.

> ours just gates each process through the queue, and
> the result is alternate characters going to alternate
> processes.

Now that you said it, it's very obvious because the keyboard
gives characters one at a time.

Is there a reason why the plumber does not close(0)?

	-Aki