> 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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/