Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
To: Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block
In-Reply-To: <20030605183408.GB3291@matchmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0306051710110.4466@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.com>
References: <11E89240C407D311958800A0C9ACF7D1A33EBD@EXCHANGE>
 <Pine.LNX.4.55.0306041717230.3655@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.com>
 <20030605183408.GB3291@matchmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1199
Lines: 31

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Mike Fedyk wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 05:19:05PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > Besides the stupid name O_REALLYNONBLOCK, it really should be different
> > from both O_NONBLOCK and O_NDELAY. Currently in Linux they both map to the
> > same value, so you really need a new value to not break binary compatibility.
>
> Hmm, wouldn't that be source and binary compatability?  If an app used
> O_NDELAY and O_NONBLOCK interchangably, then a change to O_NDELAY would
> break source compatability too.

Oh, that's for sure.


> Also, what do other UNIX OSes do?  Do they have seperate semantics for
> O_NONBLOCK and O_NDELAY?  If so, then it would probably be better to change
> O_NDELAY to be similar and add another feature at the same time as reducing
> platform specific codeing in userspace.

If I remember it correctly, they differ from the return value that you get
from blocking-candidate functions (0 <-> -1).


- Davide

-
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/