Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:36:13 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Matthew Hagerty <matthew@mundomateo.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are write() calls guaranteed atomic? Message-ID: <20030602173612.GB1407@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <1720.216.120.158.65.1054573025.squirrel@www.mundomateo.com> References: <1553.216.120.158.65.1054566440.squirrel@www.mundomateo.com> <20030602154917.GA97655@dan.emsphone.com> <1720.216.120.158.65.1054573025.squirrel@www.mundomateo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Jun 02), Matthew Hagerty said: > Thanks for the info, very helpful! What reference did you get that > from? I searched high and low to find a definitive answer (like the > one above) before posting. The Open Group has their Single Unix Specification available online, which is technically identical to IEEE Std 1003.1. http://www.unix.org/single_unix_specification/ > As for the clients, no, I don't have control over them. They are web > server child processes, Apache usually. I considered using a socket, but > I must have missed something since I didn't realize you could have a local > socket that looks and smells like a file to external processes? Based on > your post, can I assume that I can create a socket that can be accessed > using open() and write() by external processes? > > On my way to RTFM... man socket (again...) Take a look at syslogd; it creates a unix domain socket at /var/run/log. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030602173612.GB1407>