From owner-cvs-all Sat Nov 10 2:48:58 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207D837B41B; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 02:48:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102]) by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA13657; Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:48:45 +1100 Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 21:47:36 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: To: Bill Fenner Cc: , , Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/fs/fifofs fifo_vnops.c In-Reply-To: <200111100931.BAA04711@windsor.research.att.com> Message-ID: <20011110213951.L17380-100000@delplex.bde.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Bill Fenner wrote: > >For read(), it is normal to have to spin if there is no writer and you > >don't want to block. > > You don't get a choice. POSIX [seems to say] that a blocking read on > a FIFO with no writers will return 0, forcing you to spin no matter what. Oops. (I think it is clear that POSIX actually says this. So the only way to avoid spinning is to do a blocking open().) > FIFO permissions mean that it's possible that the reader cannot > supply a phantom writer. I forgot that you mentioned this before. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message