On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 07:24:54AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > An application that checked only for EWOULDBLOCK might fail now that > EAGAIN is being returned. > > Is this a concern? I don't think it is. The POSIX standard, in all > cases I could find, says the functions return "EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK", > meaning that a conforming program must check for both. > It's a two instruction penalty(*) in the kernel syscall return path, just do it there. I've got a box at Red Hat with all the source to the whole damn world on it we run greps against to look for dumb stuff like memcpy bugs. I'll toss a grep for EAGAIN and not EWOULDBLOCK and vice versa and see how much stuff might b0rk. We discussed this a couple years ago, and it ended up being a complete rats nest of error returns that needed fixing. regards, Kyle. *: CMPI,N(=), LDI, maybe a third since I don't remember how sign extension works off the top of my head. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
