On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 19:40:28 -0400, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 16:49:24 -0600, Michael Burk wrote:
> > Sorry I didn't make that clear. The patch was the one-liner (datafd only). I
> > ran it again with the Dustin's 2-liner with the same results.
> 
> Ah, interesting.
> 
> I wonder if doing a one-line patch against (say) indexfd instead would
> also prevent the "index tee cannot write [" error message.  That would
> imply that just making _any_ fnctl(XX, F_GETFL,0) call is sufficient to
> get the correct O_NONBLOCK behavior on _all_ file descriptors....

But, on the other hand, I don't immediately understand why the one-line
datafd patch would avoid the sed stdout error that you got when tried
Jean-Louis's pipe-blocking.diff patch [from Aug 24], as you reported on
Aug 30.  

That patch, I'm assuming, affected the file descriptor called "datafd"
(though by a different name), but not "indexfd", and it seemed to allow
the index tee write to succeed, thus allowing the data to flow along far
enough to reach the "stdout" error from sed (which, I belive, is tied to
that "indexfd" file descriptor).

The later three-line patch touched both datafd and indexfd, and it
seemed to fix that second problem (and the first stayed fixed as well).

But it sounds like you are saying that the one-line patch, which touched
only datafd, actually fixed both problems as well....


                                                                Nathan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Stratton Treadway  -  nathanst AT ontko DOT com  -  Mid-Atlantic region
Ray Ontko & Co.  -  Software consulting services  -   http://www.ontko.com/
 GPG Key: http://www.ontko.com/~nathanst/gpg_key.txt   ID: 1023D/ECFB6239
 Key fingerprint = 6AD8 485E 20B9 5C71 231C  0C32 15F3 ADCD ECFB 6239