Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:53:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Subject: Re: comments on proposed uthread_write.c changes Message-ID: <200309101453.h8AErJsV078350@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <1063178382.15482.550.camel@rufus> References: <3F5B89B3.11367.112C1E2D@localhost> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309091929500.13114-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> <200309100034.h8A0YTdY066678@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <1063178382.15482.550.camel@rufus>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On 10 Sep 2003 09:19:43 +0200, Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com> said: > Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that a non-zero > write may not return zero? Keep in mind that from the > user's or my standpoint, we are talking about blocking > writes. That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that, if write() returns zero, it must be a permanent condition; that is to say, when write() returns zero it is not appropriate to retry, as one would do for a partial write of non-zero length. -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200309101453.h8AErJsV078350>