Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:07:13 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc_r/uthread uthread_write.c Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10312180904220.23200-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20031218164341.J19119@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Nate Lawson wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Nate Lawson wrote: > > > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > Does this fix something other than bacula? > > > > > > > > Anyone else who expected this semantics. I have no specific examples. > > > > > > I think it probably only pertinent to writing to tape devices > > > where a 0 return means end of tape. Otherwise you should > > Do mean "writing to tape devices with a broken device driver that > returns 0 to mean end of tape". POSIX seems to be clear enough saying > that write() returns -1 except on successful completion. I don't > believe write() with a nonzero count is successful if it can write > nothing. I think returning 0 to mean end-of-tape is an historical behavior. We should probably be returning -1 and ENOSPC. -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10312180904220.23200-100000>