Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block |
| |
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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |