From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep 10 07:53:28 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C228216A4BF; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6C02843FD7; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:53:25 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu)
Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (localhost.nic.fr [IPv6:::1])
	by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8AErJXV078353
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256
	verify=OK CN=khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu issuer=SSL+20Client+20CA);
	Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu)
Received: (from wollman@localhost)
	by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8AErJsV078350;
	Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:53:19 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from wollman)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:53:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <200309101453.h8AErJsV078350@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
To: Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com>
In-Reply-To: <1063178382.15482.550.camel@rufus>
References: <3F5B89B3.11367.112C1E2D@localhost>
	<Pine.GSO.4.10.10309091929500.13114-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
	<200309100034.h8A0YTdY066678@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
	<1063178382.15482.550.camel@rufus>
X-Spam-Score: -19.8 ()
	IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.33 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
cc: deischen@freebsd.org
cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
cc: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>
cc: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org>
cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
Subject: Re: comments on proposed uthread_write.c changes
X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Standards compliance <freebsd-standards.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards>,
	<mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-standards>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-standards@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards>,
	<mailto:freebsd-standards-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:53:28 -0000

<<On 10 Sep 2003 09:19:43 +0200, Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com> said:

> Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that a non-zero
> write may not return zero?  Keep in mind that from the
> user's or my standpoint, we are talking about blocking
> writes.

That is not my conclusion.  My conclusion is that, if write() returns
zero, it must be a permanent condition; that is to say, when write()
returns zero it is not appropriate to retry, as one would do for a
partial write of non-zero length.

-GAWollman