Re: [PATCH] [2.5] Non-blocking write can block

From: Mike Fedyk (
Date: Thu Jun 05 2003 - 13:34:08 EST

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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:28 EST