From owner-freebsd-current  Fri Dec 25 02:47:18 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA27005
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 02:47:18 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.9])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA26994
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 25 Dec 1998 02:47:15 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost)
	by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id VAA29549;
	Fri, 25 Dec 1998 21:47:00 +1100
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 21:47:00 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199812251047.VAA29549@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: current@FreeBSD.ORG, green@unixhelp.org
Subject: Re: revoke of fifos
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>revoke(2) on VFIFO types is broken now, leading to stranded mbuf's. I suppose

I don't think it has ever worked in BSD.

>bde is tracking this down, but for now, why don't we return EINVAL in revoke(2)?

I thought it wasn't urgent because I thought that only root could revoke :-(.

Bruce

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message