From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 12 04:29:50 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id EAA20353 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 04:29:50 -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 EAA20343 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 04:29:43 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jgreco@localhost) by brasil.moneng.mei.com (8.7.Beta.1/8.7.Beta.1) id GAA20953; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:26:21 -0600 From: Joe Greco Message-Id: <199611121226.GAA20953@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Subject: Re: semaphores/shared memory To: scrappy@ki.net (Marc G. Fournier) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 06:26:20 -0600 (CST) Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, terry@lambert.org, twpierce@bio-3.bsd.uchicago.edu, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: from "Marc G. Fournier" at Nov 12, 96 01:26:20 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > 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* > > > > Ya, but this could be gotten around if we create several buffers > that get written to sequentially...then the server can make the assumption > (in my case, the assumption would be safe) that by the time the server got > back to writing to area 1, the clients aren't much behind it... I have a friend who is fond of saying that assumption is the mother of all ****ups... :-) ... JG