From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Sep 1 06:34:06 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id GAA02643 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 1 Sep 1995 06:34:06 -0700 Received: from aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw ([140.109.40.248]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id GAA02637 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 1995 06:34:03 -0700 Received: (from taob@localhost) by aries.ibms.sinica.edu.tw (8.6.11/8.6.9) id VAA21744; Fri, 1 Sep 1995 21:29:59 +0800 Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 21:29:59 +0800 (CST) From: Brian Tao To: hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org, Joerg Wunsch Subject: Re: 16-bit pids? (was Re: 16, 32, and 64bit types?) In-Reply-To: <199508312021.WAA27457@uriah.heep.sax.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Thu, 31 Aug 1995, J Wunsch wrote: > > That's not the problem. The actual problem are long-living processes > that cause collisions since you expect temp files like > /foo/bar/file. to be unique within the system. Why would a collision occur? If you have along-living process at, say, pid 151 (like what 'xdm' is on my machine right now) and the most recently used pid was 150 (assuming it had cycled around), wouldn't the scheduler/kernel just see that 151 is still running, and number the next process 152? Is that the type of "PID collision" you are referring to? -- Brian ("Though this be madness, yet there is method in't") Tao taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw <-- work ........ play --> taob@io.org