https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95331 --- Comment #10 from Jason Vas Dias <jason.vas.dias@xxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry, version of above comment #8 with typos fixed: I think linux should provide a way of by-passing this generation of error events for writable FDs with no readers - blocking should be possible for writable pipe FDs for which the "wait for readers on write" (WFROW??) fcntl or ioctl has been issued, which would only return success for writable pipe FDs with no readers (readers == 0) ; for such pipes, for which SIGPIPE or write has set errno to EPIPE only once, blocking writes would then succeed, until a new reader has connected, upon which a SIGIO / SIGPOLL or fcntl(fd, F_SETSIG, signum) specified signal with that signal being caught, would be sent if the FD had such a handler registered for it with the siginfo si_band and si_fd fields correctly filled in; such a signal would also be sent and write() would return -1 ONCE for such FDs when the last reader disconnects, as currently happens; but if O_NONBLOCK is NOT set in the FD's flags, then the next write would block, instead of returning -1 as currently happens, or at least a signal would be sent if registered and the O_ASYNC bit is set in the FD's flags . This would essentially fix the problem of having to know the name of the pipe in order to re-open it and be able to wait for readers to connect ; one could handle a write returning -1 with EPIPE or a SIGPIPE by simply entering pause() with a SIGIO handler registered, which is NOT currently the case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
