Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264227AbTFDWO2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:14:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264228AbTFDWO2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:14:28 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-4-cust86.swan.cable.ntl.com ([213.105.254.86]:4998 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264227AbTFDWO0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:14:26 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block From: Alan Cox To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "P. Benie" , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Message-Id: <1054762191.14033.72.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 04 Jun 2003 22:29:53 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 964 Lines: 18 On Mer, 2003-06-04 at 18:57, Linus Torvalds wrote: > A much better fix might well be to actually not allow over-long tty writes > at all, and thus avoid the "block out" thing at the source of the problem, > instead of trying to make programs who play nice be the ones that suffer. > > If somebody does a 1MB write to a tty, do we actually have any reason to > try to make it so damn atomic and not return early? I would be concerned as to what applications rely in the tty write being done completely before returning. OTOH I can't see any reason we can't drop the atomicity part without dropping the 1Mb write will eventually write 1Mbyte property. That would not seem to be a problem unless POSIX says otherwise ? - 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/