Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:33:14 -0400 > Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > - Non-blocking I/O has long been supported with a well-understood set >> > of operations - O_NONBLOCK and fcntl(). Why do we need a different >> > mechanism here - one that's only understood in the context of >> > buffered file I/O? I assume you didn't want to implement support >> > for poll() and all that, but is that a good enough reason to add a >> > new Linux-specific non-blocking I/O technique? >> >> I realized that I didn't answer this question well in my other long >> email. O_NONBLOCK doesn't work on files under any commonly used OS, >> and people have gotten use to this behavior so I doubt we could change >> that without breaking a lot of folks applications. > > So I'm not contesting this, but I am genuinely curious: do you think > there are applications out there requesting non-blocking behavior on > regular files that will then break if they actually get non-blocking > behavior? I don't suppose you have an example? Hi, Jon, Back when I tried to introduct O_NONBLOCK for regular files, the squid proxy actually broke. Software that dealt with burning optical media also broke. See my mail message here for more details: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/15/942 Cheers, Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
