Re: [PATCH 2/2] pack-objects: be incredibly anal about stdio semantics

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



And Linus Torvalds writes:
 - 
 - I don't have any really strong opinions on it. I think that any libc that 
 - needs the "ferror()" test + EINTR loopback is totally broken. I would 
 - happily say that people should just not use a development platform that is 
 - that horrible.

If you consider stdio to be a low-level wrapper over syscalls
that only adds buffering and simple parsing, then passing EINTR
back to the application is a sensible choice.  I wouldn't be
too surprised if L4, VxWorks, etc. do something similar.

 - So I _think_ we're safe with just the "sigaction()" diff.  Neither of the 
 - patches _should_ make any difference at all on a sane platform. 

Anyone with an older HP/UX care to try these patches?  HP/UX 
may not be sane, but I think it may lack SA_RESTART.  I don't 
know if stdio calls need restarted, though.

Jason
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]