Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:13:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:13:03 -0400 Received: from cse.ogi.edu ([129.95.20.2]:64953 "EHLO church.cse.ogi.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:13:02 -0400 To: Dan Kegel Cc: linux-kernel , linux-aio Subject: Re: epoll (was Re: [PATCH] async poll for 2.5) References: <3DB0AD79.30401@netscape.com> <20021019065916.GB17553@mark.mielke.cc> <3DB19AE6.6020703@kegel.com> From: "Charles 'Buck' Krasic" Date: 19 Oct 2002 13:18:54 -0700 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Artificial Intelligence) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 658 Lines: 16 Whoops. I just realized a flaw in my own argument. With read, a short count might precede EOF. Indeed, in that case, calling epoll_getevents would cause the connection to get stuck. Never mind my earlier message then. -- Buck "Charles 'Buck' Krasic" writes: > In summary, a short count is every bit as reliable as EAGAIN to know > that it is safe to wait on epoll_getevents. > -- Buck - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/