From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr  8 11:17:12 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 45D4337B401; Tue,  8 Apr 2003 11:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagual.pp.ru (pobrecita.freebsd.ru [194.87.13.42])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 865E843FA3; Tue,  8 Apr 2003 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from ache@pobrecita.freebsd.ru)
Received: from pobrecita.freebsd.ru (ache@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by nagual.pp.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h38IH90q042817;
	Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:17:09 +0400 (MSD)
	(envelope-from ache@pobrecita.freebsd.ru)
Received: (from ache@localhost)
	by pobrecita.freebsd.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h38IH8Vc042816;
	Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:17:08 +0400 (MSD)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:17:08 +0400
From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru>
To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20030408181707.GA42723@nagual.pp.ru>
References: <20030408164614.GA7236@comp.chem.msu.su>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030408164614.GA7236@comp.chem.msu.su>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: termios & non-blocking I/O
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture
	<freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 18:17:12 -0000

On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 20:46:14 +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> While not in disagreement with POSIX[1], such a behaviour has at
> least one unwelcome consequence:  If a program has been compiled
> with ``-pthread'', the TIME counter won't work on terminal descriptors
> that are in blocking mode from the program's point of view -- read(2)
> will instantly return 0 on them.  That is because the following
> scenario will happen:
...

> Shouldn't both TIME and MIN cases be uniform in returning -1/EAGAIN
> on non-blocking descriptors?

It means that libc_r MIN/TIME handling should be fixed to conform POSIX
and not general MIN/TIME handling way.

-- 
Andrey A. Chernov
http://ache.pp.ru/