From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Nov 11 11:10:24 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA03858
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:10:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brasil.moneng.mei.com (brasil.moneng.mei.com [151.186.109.160])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA03846
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:10:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id NAA19699; Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:05:53 -0600
From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
Message-Id: <199611111905.NAA19699@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
Subject: Re: semaphores/shared memory
To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:05:53 -0600 (CST)
Cc: scrappy@ki.net, twpierce@bio-3.bsd.uchicago.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199611111717.KAA18289@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Nov 11, 96 10:17:19 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > 	Okay, now bearing in mind that I'm looking at the examples as
> > presented in "Unix Network Programming" by W. Richard Stevens...how
> > do n clients signal back to the server that its finished with the data
> > and can send up the next set of data?
> 
> This is why I didn't suggest the same soloution.
> 
> However, now I have to question my assumptions... why is it necessary
> for the clients to signal the server?

Reuse of the buffer area?

It would be stupid for the server to start writing new data before
everyone else is done with it.

*shrug*

... JG