From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 11 14:10:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80C216A41C; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:10:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ECCF43D1D; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:10:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 74B475CAB4; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:10:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:10:21 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman Message-ID: <20050611141021.GD17867@elvis.mu.org> References: <200506102350.j5ANofFM008212@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050611034930.GY17867@elvis.mu.org> <20050611064956.GC66188@green.homeunix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050611064956.GC66188@green.homeunix.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/nfsclient nfs_bio.c nfs_vfsops.c nfsargs.h nfsmount.h src/sys/sys buf.h bufobj.h src/sys/kern vfs_bio.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:10:21 -0000 * Brian Fundakowski Feldman [050610 23:49] wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:49:30PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Returning EAGAIN from a disk IO seems bogus, are you sure it makes > > sense to do that when IO_NDELAY is set? Shouldn't it just be ignored > > like other FSes do? > > Well, it's not disk IO, it's network IO. I figure if you set that > flag you should expect commensurate error return values. This is > conceivably a useful behavior, and POSIX does not forbid it, so I just > made the judgement call to not deny the functionality. > > Would you actually be surprised to get EAGAIN if you requested > non-blocking access to a file stream, ignoring the fact that it just > happens to not have been done already for other S_ISREG file streams? How does one poll(2) or kqueue(2) to determine when EAGAIN will "go away" ? Maybe I'm misreading the code, but it appears that O_FSYNC writes on a non-blocking write will _always_ return EAGAIN? So when is it safe to "AGAIN"? :) -- - Alfred Perlstein - email: bright@mu.org cell: 408-480-4684