[BusyBox] another one on circular buffer syslogd

[Gyepi SAM]

On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 08:09:53PM +0100, Michael Renzmann wrote:
> Hi all.
> 
> Erm, is anyone actually reading my mails concerning that circular buffer
> syslogd? At least Gennady? There was very few response on that by now...
> :)

I have been.

 
> One process is the father, the rest are childs. So there seems to be a
> forking problem somewhere. Any ideas where to look at for this?

It is indeed due to forking, but it is not a problem per se: it is by
design.  syslogd forks a child to handle each connection.   I recall some 
discussions about changing it to a non-forking version which would use
select. Someone expressed the thought that select would increase the program
size by quite a bit.  I have thought about, but never had the time, to 
investigate this empirically.

In any case, the solution to the 'problem' would require rewriting syslogd 
to use select instead of forking.  A nice project for someone with a bit of
time.  I am interested, but cannot promise to do it soon.

-Gyepi