Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 06 Jun 2003 08:13:21 -0400 | From | "Nicholas Berry" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block |
| |
>>> "Richard B. Johnson" <root@chaos.analogic.com> 06/05/03 03:15PM >>> >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. > > 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. > -
>My Sun thinks that O_NDELAY = 0x04 and O_NONBLOCK = 0x80, FWIW.
AIX 4.3.3 O_NDELAY = 0x8000 and O_NONBLOCK = 0x04 FWTW.
Nik
>Cheers, >Dick Johnson >Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). >Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.
- 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/
| |