On 2/23/09, Kyle McMartin <kyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 04:20:53PM +1300, Michael Kerrisk wrote: >> * POSIX has no specification of flock() (only fcntl() locking is >> specified by POSIX.1). >> > > *nod* My mistake. > >> * My understanding is that EAGAIN originated on System V, and was the >> error returned instead of blocking for system calls performing I/O, >> semaphore operations, message queue operations, and (fcntl()) file >> locking. EWOULDBLOCK originated on BSD, and was returned by (flock()) >> file locking and socket-related system calls. >> >> * flock() is a BSDism, and the associated error was EWOULDBLOCK. >> >> * Generally POSIX requires that each error name must have distinct >> associated value. EAGAIN and EWOULDBLOCK are one of the few >> exceptions: POSIX permits, but does not require, that these error >> constants have the same value. On most systems they of course do have >> the same value. HP-UX is the most notable exception. >> > > You appear to be be quite correct, I would imagine this is 'hysterical > raisins.' I suspect it comes from HP-UX's history of trying to ride two horses (BSD and System V) in the days before standards had something to say about it all, but that's just a guess on my part. -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
