Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Jun 2003 17:19:05 -0700 (PDT) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block |
| |
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Ed Vance wrote:
> Do you mean something like the separate O_NDELAY flag under Solar*s? IIRC > they also use return code EWOULDBLOCK to differentiate the "could not get > resource" cases from the "no room for more data" cases when O_NONBLOCK is > used.
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.
- 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/
| |