On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:20:20PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > What do you think of ENODATA? The glibc text for it is pretty > > appropriate. If it's not available everywhere, we'd have to fallback to > > something else (EIO? 0?). I don't know how esoteric it is. The likely > > candidate to be lacking it is Windows. > > ENODATA with a fallback to ESPIPE sounds fine to me. > > read() would never produce ESPIPE because it doesn't seek. > > So that would be: > > /* errno value to use for early EOF */ > #ifndef ENODATA > #define ENODATA ESPIPE > #endif Thanks, I'll re-roll with that (and thank you Stefan for mentioning ENODATA again; I came across it early in my search but discounted it as not quite right semantically. I should have been looking at the strerror() text, which is what really matters). What do you think of patch 7 in light of this? If the short-read case gives us a sane errno, should we even bother trying to consistently handle its error separately? -Peff
