Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Jun 2007 07:41:21 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sendfile removal |
| |
On Thu, May 31 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: > >> > >>> - retval = in_file->f_op->sendfile(in_file, ppos, count, file_send_actor, out_file); > >>> + fl = 0; > >>> + if (in_file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) > >>> + fl = SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK; > >>> + > >>> + retval = do_splice_direct(in_file, ppos, out_file, count, fl); > >> I like this, but are you sure it wont break user land ? > >> > >> Some applications might react badly if sendfile() returns EAGAIN ? > > > > Yeah, I didn't actually intend for that to sneak in. I'd think that > > userspace should handle it if they opened the file O_NONBLOCK (or used > > fcntl()), but it's a change in behaviour none the less and probably not > > a good idea. > > > > I would personally argue that sendfile() blocking on an O_NONBLOCK > desriptor, as opposed to returning EAGAIN, is a bug, and a fairly > serious such.
I agree, but it's still a change in behaviour. Even if we consider the app buggy (it is), can we potentially break it?
-- Jens Axboe
- 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/
| |