Date: 10 Sep 2003 17:40:23 +0200 From: Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Subject: Re: comments on proposed uthread_write.c changes Message-ID: <1063208423.27638.122.camel@rufus> In-Reply-To: <200309101453.h8AErJsV078350@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> 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> <200309101453.h8AErJsV078350@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-xmwi4T7h8ZoAwEEUyMKV Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 16:53, Garrett Wollman wrote: > <<On 10 Sep 2003 09:19:43 +0200, Kern Sibbald <kern@sibbald.com> said: >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > -GAWollman Yes, sorry, I misunderstood -- my mistake. --=-xmwi4T7h8ZoAwEEUyMKV Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/X0XnNgfoSvWqwEgRAgkJAJ4+6DbMBK2tcB/fSvIatR/8CeZy4gCffdav YvnclT6lF4B81lFQGEPe2Jg= =Hvhr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-xmwi4T7h8ZoAwEEUyMKV--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1063208423.27638.122.camel>