Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:20:06 -0400 | From | Mark Mielke <> | Subject | Re: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug? |
| |
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 02:10:52AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 07:00:19PM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote: > > Just say "it's a bug, but one we have chosen not to fix for practical > > reasons." That would have kept me out of this discussion. Saying the > > behaviour is correct and that POSIX is wrong - that raises hairs - > > both the question kind, and the concern kind. > Why? POSIX have gotten *lots* of things wrong in the past. > [ non-relevant complaints about POSIX ] > What we do when POSIX does > something idiotic is something that has to be addressed on a > case-by-case basis.
In this case, POSIX defines select() / blocking read() to be useful. Linux defines it to be dangerous.
I have no question in my mind which behaviour is 'correct', in this case. Deciding between something that works, and something that doesn't, is a no brainer for me. Talking about performance, and so on, is just a complete distraction. Who cares about performance when a percentage of the time the caller will be in a confused state as a result?
I'm ok with case-by-case. I'm not ok with a generic "POSIX sucks lots - why should we be POSIX compliant?"
Cheers, mark
-- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
- 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/
| |