Re: [dwm] dwm-5.3

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Guillaume Quintin
<coincoin169g_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> I just tried the close(0) patch but it does not change anything. And I
> found something very weird. I told you that in the previous version of
> dwm (5.2) with the .xinitrc containing the "while | dwm" all worked
> fine and I am sure of that. I quitted dwm-5.2 many times with a lot of
> openned windows and all worked fine. But now, when I reinstall dwm-5.2 I
> get the same problem than in dwm-5.3 and dwm-5.3.1, "double-fork",
> "simple-fork" and re-"double-fork". I don't understand why.

Is there any chance you may have recently updated your version of
xorg-server? I know the change just got pushed out recently on
Archlinux, and it seems to have changed some corner cases that people
previously took for granted.

In response to your idea for executing status scripts, that's roughly
how my patched version of dwm does it, though mine takes the status
script name (or possibly even the content) as an argument, and stores
the entirety of argv so that dwm can re-exec itself to restart/change
the script. In any case, the function you're looking for to replace a
fid with another is 'dup2(replacement, to_replace)'.

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Guillaume Quintin
<coincoin169g_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> I just tried the close(0) patch but it does not change anything. And I
> found something very weird. I told you that in the previous version of
> dwm (5.2) with the .xinitrc containing the "while | dwm" all worked
> fine and I am sure of that. I quitted dwm-5.2 many times with a lot of
> openned windows and all worked fine. But now, when I reinstall dwm-5.2 I
> get the same problem than in dwm-5.3 and dwm-5.3.1, "double-fork",
> "simple-fork" and re-"double-fork". I don't understand why.
>
> Why don't we change the way dwm gets its status text ? For example
> we could use the SIGALRM signal to call a "spawn2" :
>
> spawn2()
> {
> check for a certain shell script ".dwmstatus";
> if it is not present then return;
> create some pipe p[];
> (double or simple)-fork;
> in the child process
> {
> close(0);
> close(1);
> close(2);
> set stdout to p[1]; /* I don't know how exactly */
> execv(".dwmstatus");
> }
> /* Here is dwm */
> read status from p[0];
> display status;
> }
>
> This will take only a few LOC, because all the reading p[0] part
> will be in fact the reading-stdin code from the run() function which
> will not be needed anymore. This has the advantages that one can change
> the status when dwm is running and there are no more "quitting"
> problem. This is just an idea, forgive me not to propose some real
> code. Well tell me what you think of this idea.
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Guillaume Quintin.
>
>
Received on Sat Dec 06 2008 - 18:40:47 UTC