From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:08:26 +0100
From: Derek Fawcus <dfawcus@cisco.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] changing close()
Message-ID: <20050817000826.B17788@mrwint.cisco.com>
References: <43008555.4010803@lanl.gov>
	<20050816080704.1012.qmail@g.galapagos.bx.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20050816080704.1012.qmail@g.galapagos.bx.psu.edu>;
	from schwartz@bio.cse.psu.edu on Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 04:07:04AM
	-0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 78efa4f6-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 04:07:04AM -0400, Scott Schwartz wrote:
> | Is this a terrible idea? (I'm trying to address the lack of technical 
> | discussion mentioned  an earlier note :0)
> 
> In my humble opinion, the better solution is to have dial return
> a pair of descriptors (and change the rest of the system to have
> e.g. /net/tcp/9/data{0,1}), so you can close the one you want.
> 
> But maybe it's too late for that, and changing close is the only way.

I fancied having a 'split' call that would act a bit like a collision
between dup and pipe;  it would return 2 fds - a read only and a write
only.   So one could then do:

int bidir_fd;
int unidir_fds[2];

split(bidir_fd, unidir_fds);
close(bidir_fd);

/* Use unidir_fd[0] and unidir_fd[1] */

DF