From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Nov 11 12:15:46 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 54DAD16A4CE; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:15:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailbox.univie.ac.at (mail.univie.ac.at [131.130.1.27])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 33EF043F3F; Tue, 11 Nov 2003 12:15:45 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from l.ertl@univie.ac.at)
Received: from wireless (adslle.cc.univie.ac.at [131.130.102.11])
	hABKFb7j130714;	Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:15:39 +0100
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:15:32 +0100 (CET)
From: Lukas Ertl <l.ertl@univie.ac.at>
To: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <200311112009.hABK94eF070133@gw.catspoiler.org>
Message-ID: <20031111211120.R678@korben.in.tern>
References: <200311112009.hABK94eF070133@gw.catspoiler.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-DCC-ZID-Univie-Metrics: mx1 4242; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: named pipes memory leak?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:15:46 -0000

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Don Lewis wrote:

> Now that I've had some time to think about it, if you reuse the same
> fifo, you'll run into the same problem that caused me to abandon my
> previous fifo_inactive() version of the cleanup code, which is stale
> data being left in the fifo after both ends have been closed.  You may
> be stuck with plan B below ...
>
> > As a workaround could you create a little mdfs to hold the fifo?

We could get away with it by just using symlinks instead of null mounts,
so, with your patch, it isn't a real problem for us anymore.  Thanks
again.

regards,
le

-- 
Lukas Ertl                             eMail: l.ertl@univie.ac.at
UNIX Systemadministrator               Tel.:  (+43 1) 4277-14073
Vienna University Computer Center      Fax.:  (+43 1) 4277-9140
University of Vienna                   http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~le/