On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 03:11:37PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Now, next time around the loop, we get a notification for an event
> > when there is no data to read. The application now must be prepared
> > to handle this case (meaning no blocking read() calls can be used).
> > --
> > Jonathan
>
> If the programmer never wants to block in a read call, he should never do a
> blocking read anyway. There's no standard that requires readability at time
> X to imply readability at time X+1.
Quite true on the surface. But taking that statement at face value
implies that it is okay for poll() to return POLLIN on a descriptor
even if there is no data to be read. I don't think this is the intention.
-- Jonathan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST