* [patch] uniform POLLRDHUP handling between epoll and poll/select ...
@ 2006-04-04 3:15 Davide Libenzi
2006-04-04 3:31 ` Michael Kerrisk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Davide Libenzi @ 2006-04-04 3:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Mailing List; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Michael Kerrisk, michael.kerrisk
Like reported by Michael Kerrisk, POLLRDHUP handling was not consistent
between epoll and poll/select, since in epoll it was unmaskeable. This
patch brings uniformity in POLLRDHUP handling.
Signed-off-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
- Davide
diff -Nru linux-2.6.16/fs/eventpoll.c linux-2.6.16.mod/fs/eventpoll.c
--- linux-2.6.16/fs/eventpoll.c 2006-04-03 20:08:23.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.16.mod/fs/eventpoll.c 2006-04-03 20:09:51.000000000 -0700
@@ -599,7 +599,7 @@
switch (op) {
case EPOLL_CTL_ADD:
if (!epi) {
- epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP | POLLRDHUP;
+ epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP;
error = ep_insert(ep, &epds, tfile, fd);
} else
@@ -613,7 +613,7 @@
break;
case EPOLL_CTL_MOD:
if (epi) {
- epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP | POLLRDHUP;
+ epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP;
error = ep_modify(ep, epi, &epds);
} else
error = -ENOENT;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [patch] uniform POLLRDHUP handling between epoll and poll/select ...
2006-04-04 3:15 [patch] uniform POLLRDHUP handling between epoll and poll/select Davide Libenzi
@ 2006-04-04 3:31 ` Michael Kerrisk
2006-04-04 3:37 ` Davide Libenzi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Kerrisk @ 2006-04-04 3:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Davide Libenzi; +Cc: linux-kernel, akpm, michael.kerrisk
Davide,
> Like reported by Michael Kerrisk, POLLRDHUP handling was not consistent
> between epoll and poll/select, since in epoll it was unmaskeable. This
> patch brings uniformity in POLLRDHUP handling.
[...]
> diff -Nru linux-2.6.16/fs/eventpoll.c linux-2.6.16.mod/fs/eventpoll.c
> --- linux-2.6.16/fs/eventpoll.c 2006-04-03 20:08:23.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.16.mod/fs/eventpoll.c 2006-04-03 20:09:51.000000000 -0700
> @@ -599,7 +599,7 @@
> switch (op) {
> case EPOLL_CTL_ADD:
> if (!epi) {
> - epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP | POLLRDHUP;
> + epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP;
>
> error = ep_insert(ep, &epds, tfile, fd);
> } else
> @@ -613,7 +613,7 @@
> break;
> case EPOLL_CTL_MOD:
> if (epi) {
> - epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP | POLLRDHUP;
> + epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP;
> error = ep_modify(ep, epi, &epds);
> } else
> error = -ENOENT;
This makes things consistent -- but in the opposite way
from what I thought they might be. (The alternative would of
course have been to make POLLRDHUP un-maskable in both epoll
and poll().)
So I'm curious: what is the rationale for making POLLRDHUP
maskable when POLLHUP is not? Is it an issue of ABI
compatibility; or something else?
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7
Want to help with man page maintenance?
Grab the latest tarball at
ftp://ftp.win.tue.nl/pub/linux-local/manpages/,
read the HOWTOHELP file and grep the source
files for 'FIXME'.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [patch] uniform POLLRDHUP handling between epoll and poll/select ...
2006-04-04 3:31 ` Michael Kerrisk
@ 2006-04-04 3:37 ` Davide Libenzi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Davide Libenzi @ 2006-04-04 3:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Kerrisk; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List, Andrew Morton, michael.kerrisk
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Davide,
>
>> Like reported by Michael Kerrisk, POLLRDHUP handling was not consistent
>> between epoll and poll/select, since in epoll it was unmaskeable. This
>> patch brings uniformity in POLLRDHUP handling.
> [...]
>> diff -Nru linux-2.6.16/fs/eventpoll.c linux-2.6.16.mod/fs/eventpoll.c
>> --- linux-2.6.16/fs/eventpoll.c 2006-04-03 20:08:23.000000000 -0700
>> +++ linux-2.6.16.mod/fs/eventpoll.c 2006-04-03 20:09:51.000000000 -0700
>> @@ -599,7 +599,7 @@
>> switch (op) {
>> case EPOLL_CTL_ADD:
>> if (!epi) {
>> - epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP | POLLRDHUP;
>> + epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP;
>>
>> error = ep_insert(ep, &epds, tfile, fd);
>> } else
>> @@ -613,7 +613,7 @@
>> break;
>> case EPOLL_CTL_MOD:
>> if (epi) {
>> - epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP | POLLRDHUP;
>> + epds.events |= POLLERR | POLLHUP;
>> error = ep_modify(ep, epi, &epds);
>> } else
>> error = -ENOENT;
>
> This makes things consistent -- but in the opposite way
> from what I thought they might be. (The alternative would of
> course have been to make POLLRDHUP un-maskable in both epoll
> and poll().)
>
> So I'm curious: what is the rationale for making POLLRDHUP
> maskable when POLLHUP is not? Is it an issue of ABI
> compatibility; or something else?
Yes, ABI compatibility.
- Davide
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-04-04 3:37 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-04-04 3:15 [patch] uniform POLLRDHUP handling between epoll and poll/select Davide Libenzi
2006-04-04 3:31 ` Michael Kerrisk
2006-04-04 3:37 ` Davide Libenzi
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®