From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 2 10:36:15 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFE637B401 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:36:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381D143F3F for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:36:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h52HaDLU053646; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:36:13 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 12:36:13 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Matthew Hagerty Message-ID: <20030602173612.GB1407@dan.emsphone.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1720.216.120.158.65.1054573025.squirrel@www.mundomateo.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.1-BETA X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Are write() calls guaranteed atomic? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 17:36:16 -0000 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