[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/
From: |
Greg Wooledge |
Subject: |
Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes? |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:27:11 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.3i |
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 04:01:37PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> The /proc/self/fd/ directory is a kernel construct. It does not have
> normal file system semantics.
> And really what would be a sane purpose in being able to remove files
> from it? What would that do? Would that make any sense at all? I
> think it wouldn't make any sense.
Well, it *could* conceivably act like close(). But that's a bit
off topic here.
- Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?, (continued)
- Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?, Greg Wooledge, 2015/10/19
- Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?, Linda Walsh, 2015/10/19
- Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?, Greg Wooledge, 2015/10/19
- Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?, Bob Proulx, 2015/10/19
- Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?, Linda Walsh, 2015/10/21
- Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?, Pierre Gaston, 2015/10/22
- Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?, Bob Proulx, 2015/10/23
- Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?,
Greg Wooledge <=
- Re: Design question(s), re: why use of tmp-files or named-pipes(/dev/fd/N) instead of plain pipes?, Ken Irving, 2015/10/19