Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 23:24:15 -0700 From: "Garrett Cooper" <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: "Antoine Brodin" <antoine@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/125680: atacontrol(8): atacontrol depends on executable in /usr Message-ID: <7d6fde3d0807212324x514c304fo19b71d9800ef9862@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <f19c444a0807210133m3f057089id8dcc5017488df43@mail.gmail.com> References: <200807202210.m6KMA4cm032331@freefall.freebsd.org> <7d6fde3d0807201714g49eb4a80ncfcc1cc800ad595e@mail.gmail.com> <f19c444a0807210039v99e8701g6c9c1fcb4f3e7b5@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d0807210104t188b6ab5hc61dc67c49d27188@mail.gmail.com> <f19c444a0807210133m3f057089id8dcc5017488df43@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Antoine Brodin <antoine@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Antoine,
>> You're right. I flip-flopped parent and child there in my
>> original statement.
>> I also saw the async ('&') terminal command.
>> But what is ultimately gained by forking another process to read
>> a device other than just resuming control for the terminal to the
>> user? It seems like all this does is create potential for additional
>> zombie processes on the system...
>> Just as an experiment, could you insert another printf or some
>> statement to ensure that the read is deterministically completed every
>> time?
>
> I have attached a patch with an extra printf.
> I guess that the dd/read is done in the background because it can take
> hours, so the user doesn't have to wait hours to have his terminal
> back.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Antoine
Ok, fair enough.
Cheers,
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7d6fde3d0807212324x514c304fo19b71d9800ef9862>