From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue Oct 16 0:50: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9320C37B40A for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.4/8.11.4) id f9G7o2f61792; Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:50:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 00:50:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200110160750.f9G7o2f61792@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Thomas Quinot Subject: Re: kern/19871 select on named pipes always returns 'available for reading' Reply-To: Thomas Quinot Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR kern/19871; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Thomas Quinot To: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG, sheldonh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/19871 select on named pipes always returns 'available for reading' Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:44:08 +0200 I was bitten by this one last night... While the interpretation of the POSIX definition for select(2) that concludes the current FreeBSD behaviour is legal, it may be worth noting that Solaris, Irix, AIX, Linux all disagree with us. (On the other hand, DEC Unix agrees). Moreover, the current behaviour means that there is no way of waiting for writers to appear on a FIFO with a select. The only possible way to do that is to have a dedicated thread blocked in !O_NONBLOCK read. I would therefore respectfully suggest that we review our implementation against the standard (I'll try to grab the copy in the next office later today :) ) and see if we can change our current behaviour. Thomas. -- Thomas.Quinot@Cuivre.FR.EU.ORG To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message