Message-ID: <015f01c4acbe$cf70dae0$161b14ac@boromir>
From: "Martijn Sipkema" <martijn@entmoot.nl>
To: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>, <hzhong@cisco.com>
Cc: "'Jean-Sebastien Trottier'" <jst1@email.com>,
       "'Linux Kernel'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       "'Alan Cox'" <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       "'David S. Miller'" <davem@redhat.com>
References: <00e501c4ac9a$556797d0$b83147ab@amer.cisco.com> <41658C03.6000503@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug?
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 23:41:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1080
Lines: 28

From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
> Hua Zhong wrote:
> 
> > It was my original proposal. The only question is to return which error
> > code. We cannot return EAGAIN as Posix explicitly disallows it. Is EIO good?
> > Or some other new error code?
> 
> Since we wouldn't be posix compliant anyway in the nonblocking case, we may as 
> well return EAGAIN--it's the most appropriate.

No, I don't think so, since POSIX says to return EAGAIN when:

  The socket's file descriptor is marked O_NONBLOCK and no data is waiting to
  be received; or MSG_OOB is set and no out-of-band data is available and either
  the socket's file descriptor is marked O_NONBLOCK or the socket does not
  support blocking to await out-of-band data

So, I think returning EIO is probably better; I think that would be POSIX
compliant.


--ms

-
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/