From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ba0d3bc70806220045x312ad75bo4714767ebcba9ba9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:45:28 +0200
From: "Sander van Dijk" <a.h.vandijk@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <20080622004931.A05691E8C22@holo.morphisms.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <ba0d3bc70806211121y59be548ycb41a958c10a8ac5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080622004931.A05691E8C22@holo.morphisms.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 'stuck' windows.
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c50a557c-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 6/22/08, Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> wrote:
> It is not waiting for dossrv to exit,
> so much as it is waiting for all the open
> file descriptors referring to that window's
> /dev/cons to be closed.  Dossrv just happens
> to be the one holding them.
>
> Probably the various dossrv'ing scripts should run
>
> 	dossrv </dev/null >/dev/null >[2=1]

But that's what 9fat: does (well, not literally, since it does 'dossrv
>/dev/null </dev/null >[2]/dev/null', but it means the same). So then
dossrv shouldn't be holding the window's /dev/cons open, right?

>> Has it always been this way
>
> I think it has.

I just found an old cdrom (20070810), and it happens there as well, so
I guess my memory was playing tricks on me here.

Greetings, Sander.