Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:31:51 +0800 From: David Xu <listlog2011@gmail.com> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, arch@freebsd.org, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: short read/write and error code Message-ID: <5019BC67.9000601@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120802040542.G2978@besplex.bde.org> References: <5018992C.8000207@freebsd.org> <20120801071934.GJ2676@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120801183240.K1291@besplex.bde.org> <20120801162836.GO2676@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20120802040542.G2978@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2012/8/2 2:58, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> As I said, patch behaviour in regard of SIGPIPE is just wrong. > > It is too simple. The pipe code already reset error code zero if the writer have written all bytes to pipe buffer, it does not return EPIPE even if reader closed the pipe, so SIGPIPE is not sent in the case. The SIGPIPE is only generated for short write, this is an intention, it is for applications which takes no notice of short write, such an application does not check return value from write(), when kernel generates SIGPIPE, the default action is to kill the application, if application setup a sigaction for SIGPIPE, this implies that application knows short write. So the patch is correct when it sees EPIPE code. Regards, David Xu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5019BC67.9000601>