Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Markus Elfring Newsgroups: comp.programming.threads,comp.unix.programmer Subject: Signal handlers writing into pipes Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:36:29 +0200 Lines: 13 Message-ID: <506C4D6D.2090809@web.de> References: <87txuep1iz.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net BvOIfawstXk3nA0vCzxncQIvR4gUcfhRD4AnmnNaWasn5P0mBG Cancel-Lock: sha1:vvHSjduty7vlGbx1iBSkQyyhnfY= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120825 Thunderbird/15.0 In-Reply-To: <87txuep1iz.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> Xref: csiph.com comp.programming.threads:1165 comp.unix.programmer:3453 > Technically, when the program is receiving signals so fast that it > doesn't get around to processing them anymore, that's a livelock and > in this case, something has to be dropped on the floor in order to > restore the ability to make forward progress. Consequently, just > setting the pipe descriptor to non-blocking and ignoring EAGAIN in the > signal handler might be a sensible approach, especially considering > that this is unlikely to happen for typical uses of signals. Can the probability for a live-lock be reduced if a named pipe would be used instead of an anonymous one? Regards, Markus