Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:52:31 +0200 From: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: f_offset Message-ID: <20080414145231.GJ5934@hoeg.nl> In-Reply-To: <20080413223053.U959@desktop> References: <1309.1208100178@critter.freebsd.dk> <20080413131724.X959@desktop> <20080414074710.GI5934@hoeg.nl> <20080413223053.U959@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--8+odlFQADydc3R4z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net> wrote: > You should use an sx lock which can be held across such operations. Non= =20 > seekable devices, terminals included, have to serialize all IO. They are= =20 > treated separately by posix. It's all so confusing that the standards seem to change then. When I take a look at the POSIX onlinepubs, the articles seem to mention the opposite: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/read.html "The behavior of multiple concurrent reads on the same pipe, FIFO, or terminal device is unspecified." http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/write.html "This volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 does not specify behavior of concurrent writes to a file from multiple processes. Applications should use some form of concurrency control." --=20 Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> WWW: http://g-rave.nl/ --8+odlFQADydc3R4z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkgDb68ACgkQ52SDGA2eCwUzYwCfVb77MvmedRLqPwP2Jo6zrTUF PrYAn28KWSfn7Lcke0ZXmL51kh4Zz2VR =lYto -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --8+odlFQADydc3R4z--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080414145231.GJ5934>