Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:27:10 +0300 (MSK) From: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru> To: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should sendfile() to return EAGAIN? [patch] Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0303092026380.85235-100000@is> In-Reply-To: <20030309135037.GK79234@perrin.int.nxad.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote: >The patch updates the case of sendfile() when there aren't any >sf_buf's available. Instead of calling msleep() and blocking the >caller on a socket that has been marked non-blocking, return instantly >with EAGAIN. This doesn't provide a mechanism for identifying that >there aren't any sf_buf's available. At some point a read only sysctl I think if this sendfile() behaviour will be implemented it should return ENOBUFS and should be explicity enabled by the application via sendfile() flag (something like SF_ENOBUFS). EAGAIN should be returned only if there is some way to notify the application about the operation readiness via select()/poll()/kevent(). Igor Sysoev http://sysoev.ru/en/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0303092026380.85235-100000>