From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Oct 6 8:24: 6 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2AE37B66C for ; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 08:24:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id e96FNvY02330; Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:23:57 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 10:23:57 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Paul Herman Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: fifos over NFS Message-ID: <20001006102356.A29878@dan.emsphone.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.9i In-Reply-To: ; from "Paul Herman" on Fri Oct 6 15:39:40 GMT 2000 X-OS: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In the last episode (Oct 06), Paul Herman said: > My take on the nfs code (in nfs_open) is that an open() on a FIFO > should return an EACCES. I have no problems with that. But when I > > NFS Server: mkfifo foo; cat < foo > NFS Client: echo "hello world" > foo > > (over an NFS mount point) the shell hangs on the client trying to > open "foo" instead of returning an error. Did I miss something like > a mount_nfs option? I think that's expected behaviour. Fifos should be usable on NFS mounts, but an active fifo is only usable for processes running on the same machine. So if you're running completely diskless, or had NFS-mounted home dirs, for example, you can still use fifos. Your example works if you run both lines on the client, or both on the server. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@emsphone.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message