From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Mar 9 9:27:33 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79FD237B401 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:27:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from park.rambler.ru (park.rambler.ru [81.19.64.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5DB43FB1 for ; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:27:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from is@rambler-co.ru) Received: from is.park.rambler.ru (is.park.rambler.ru [81.19.64.102]) by park.rambler.ru (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h29HRAmF037627; Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:27:10 +0300 (MSK) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:27:10 +0300 (MSK) From: Igor Sysoev X-Sender: is@is To: Sean Chittenden Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Should sendfile() to return EAGAIN? [patch] In-Reply-To: <20030309135037.GK79234@perrin.int.nxad.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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