On Friday 03 July 2015, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 12:21:02PM +0200, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> > I have a question and a comment about my own patch :)
> >
> :-)
>
> I have applied the patch with some small changes:
> > On Thursday 02 July 2015, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> > > @@ -367,7 +365,7 @@ static void handle_signal(struct
> > > script_control *ctl, int fd)
> > >
> > > bytes = read(fd, &info, sizeof(info));
> > > if (bytes != sizeof(info)) {
> > > - if (errno == EAGAIN)
> > > + if (bytes < 0 && errno == EAGAIN)
> > > return;
> >
> > Should we also return on EINTR here like we do in handle_io()?
>
> It's probably more robust, Fixed.
BTW there is another potential issue for systems where EAGAIN !=
EWOULDBLOCK. These systems might be seldom but who knows exactly? If we
don't want to care about EWOULDBLOCK in whole util-linux then we
should maybe abort configure if both are not equal ... and wait for
complaining users.
see
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7003234/which-systems-define-eagain-and-ewouldblock-as-different-values
I've tested on AIX but when using gcc and/or the right defines I've
got EAGAIN == EWOULDBLOCK there too.
cu,
Rudi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
