lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: writev() BUGS!
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:25:31 -0400
> From: Jim Nance <jlnance@sailboat.mis.uncwil.edu>
>
> I thought you were wrong, but now I think you are right (at least wrt Digital
> Unix). Here is the Digital Unix man page:
>
> http://alisa.ucsd.edu/cgi/webman?SEARCH+man2+write.2.gz
>
> And the Linux manpages say otherwise (both the traditional writev
> manpage, and the new netman manpages for send and friends).
>
> Even if Linux's behavior is wrong, and I personally think our behavior
> is a lot better, it now comes down to changing an existing and long
> standing Linux API. And just due to that, I am very unlikely to make
> the change. There are FTP servers which depend upon this behavior for
> single iovec sends, ie. they do check for partial writes and handle
> things correctly.
>
> So what if I change the behavior, and someone now writes an app which
> now depends on this new writev behavior, now their application is by
> definition broken on older kernels and more importantly 2.0.x kernels.
>
> No, I'm not going to advocate nor make this change, sorry.

Last I heard Posix had not standardised writev/readv as of posix.1g. If
they remain unstandardised, then we get to do whatever is convenient (to
us) with them. If they standardise them differently from what we do,
THEN we should seriously think about changing...but unless/until they're
set in Posix stone one way or the other, I wouldn't go about altering
their behaviour.

Anyone got a Posix spec handy?

D

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.033 / U:0.816 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site