Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 20:16:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@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 Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0506122013310.20819-100000@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20050612122516.GG66188@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 06:30:49AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > I think I agree with Alfred. > > > > If select() returns ready, then you should be able to write > > some part of your buffer. Also, anyone using a file descriptor > > in non-blocking mode should expect short writes and loop until > > the entire buffer has been written. > > > > >From my understanding, disk I/O has always returned ready, then > > blocked in the kernel if necessary. I think that if we are going > > to start honoring non-blocking mode for disk I/O (or NFS, whatever), > > it should be done fully. That means you allow short writes when > > select() returns ready, and select() doesn't return ready if no > > data can be written. > > That's a good point. I wasn't more than vaguely aware of libc_r's > continued existance and usage of such things. Fixing select(3) to > match up would be easiest, right? Short writes are definitely not > allowed for a non-socket, though. Forgive my ignorance, but why are short writes for non-sockets not allowed? If you are using non-blocking IO, shouldn't you allow for this to happen? -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.43.0506122013310.20819-100000>