From: Peter W. <pet...@wo...> - 2002-03-19 19:13:53
|
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:42:36AM +0100, Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril wrote: > Hi, > > > I didn't know Clisp took a :buffered nil keyword for open. It seems > > this is the way to write to peculiar files like some of the ones under > > /proc. It fixes the problem I described in the last post. > > Do you know enough about Linux to enhance the heuristics that CLISP uses to discover whether to use buffering? There already was a changelog years ago saying something like "works better on /proc now". > > Another solution (hack?) would be to special-case /proc completely on Linux?? Not clean, though. Special case /dev as well? And what next? > > Regards, > Jorg Hohle. Hi There are already a few special-cases for /proc in pathname.d, including one with a comment about /proc being a zoo filled with strange animals :-) I don't know if its possible to test a file for wether it will support buffering io. Also, there's nothing to stop the kernel developers from dreaming up some new bizarre file in /proc which allows x but not y. It might be fun to try write an ffi definition for sysctl, but they warn that it changes between kernels, and shouldn't be used by applications :-( Regards, Peter |