On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 05:19:05PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> Besides the stupid name O_REALLYNONBLOCK, it really should be different
> from both O_NONBLOCK and O_NDELAY. Currently in Linux they both map to the
> same value, so you really need a new value to not break binary compatibility.
Hmm, wouldn't that be source and binary compatability? If an app used
O_NDELAY and O_NONBLOCK interchangably, then a change to O_NDELAY would
break source compatability too.
Also, what do other UNIX OSes do? Do they have seperate semantics for
O_NONBLOCK and O_NDELAY? If so, then it would probably be better to change
O_NDELAY to be similar and add another feature at the same time as reducing
platform specific codeing in userspace.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:28 EST