Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2001 10:03:50 -0800 From: Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au Cc: alfred@freebsd.org, cvs-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/fs/fifofs fifo_vnops.c Message-ID: <200111091803.KAA24774@windsor.research.att.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
POSIX FIFOs seem relatively useless, unless there's always a writer present. Without a writer, a reader has to spin (either in select+read or just read) until a writer is present. I can't tell if POSIX really defined FIFOs to be useless, or we're just misinterpreting the standards-speak. I'd prefer if an "empty FIFO with no writers" was really an "empty FIFO with no writers where the EOF condition hasn't been delivered yet"; then read() could block (or return EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK) when there were no writers yet, and could go back to that condition after the EOF of all the writers leaving was delivered. Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200111091803.KAA24774>