Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:34:08 -0700 | From | Mike Fedyk <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block |
| |
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. - 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/
| |