From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jul 18 11:25:49 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id LAA03731
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:25:49 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA03721
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:25:44 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id EAA21816; Wed, 19 Jul 1995 04:22:53 +1000
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 04:22:53 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199507181822.EAA21816@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: hackers@freebsd.org, imp@village.org
Subject: Re: ENOTTY????
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>Under what cases will a read return ENOTTY in FreeBSD 2.0R?  I can't
>seem to find it in the kernel sources...  That's not a ioctl (which I
>can find), but a read.  Any ideas?

>What I'm seeing that is that, under heavy load (56700bps) TIA is
>exiting because a read returned -1 and errno is set to ENOTTY.  I've
>placed a breakpoint at close, and I know I'm not closing the TTY fd.

This "can't happen" at least for ttys and ptys.  Perhaps read() actually
returned 0 and errno is stale.

Bruce