Re: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block

[Nicholas Berry]

>>> "Richard B. Johnson" <[e-mail]> 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.