From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
To: Ed Vance <EdV@macrolink.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:19:05 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0306041717230.3655@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <11E89240C407D311958800A0C9ACF7D1A33EBD@EXCHANGE>
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Ed Vance wrote:
> Do you mean something like the separate O_NDELAY flag under Solar*s? IIRC
> they also use return code EWOULDBLOCK to differentiate the "could not get
> resource" cases from the "no room for more data" cases when O_NONBLOCK is
> used.
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.
- Davide
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-05 0:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-05 0:04 Ed Vance
2003-06-05 0:19 ` Davide Libenzi [this message]
2003-06-05 18:34 ` Mike Fedyk
2003-06-05 19:15 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-06-05 21:46 ` Joe Korty
2003-06-06 0:13 ` Davide Libenzi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-06-06 12:13 Nicholas Berry
2003-06-04 19:36 Hua Zhong
2003-06-04 20:09 ` Hua Zhong
[not found] <20030604172026$296c@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <20030604175013$3a4d@gated-at.bofh.it>
2003-06-04 19:13 ` Ben Pfaff
2003-06-04 0:58 P. Benie
2003-06-04 5:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2003-06-04 14:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-06-04 14:58 ` P. Benie
2003-06-04 16:47 ` Alan Cox
2003-06-04 17:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-06-04 19:46 ` P. Benie
2003-06-04 19:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-06-04 20:48 ` P. Benie
2003-06-11 0:19 ` Robert White
2003-06-04 20:43 ` Hua Zhong
2003-06-04 23:42 ` Russell King
2003-06-04 23:47 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-06-04 21:29 ` Alan Cox
2003-06-04 17:14 ` Hua Zhong
2003-06-04 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-06-04 18:44 ` Hua Zhong
2003-06-04 18:47 ` P. Benie
2003-06-04 19:23 ` P. Benie
2003-06-04 19:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-06-04 17:53 ` Mike Dresser
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.55.0306041717230.3655@bigblue.dev.mcafeelabs.com \
--to=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=EdV@macrolink.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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®