Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:36:59 +0800 From: David Xu <listlog2011@gmail.com> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, Giovanni Trematerra <gianni@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov <kib@freebsd.org>, davidxu@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, bde@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r238936 - in head/sys: fs/fifofs kern sys Message-ID: <501A908B.9010001@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120803001044.X2863@besplex.bde.org> References: <201207310548.q6V5mZHf091624@svn.freebsd.org> <CACfq090si0g7QG9UR%2Bmb%2BO5M4KH0=WPfWnF5NzZjYzKBp8hQ5Q@mail.gmail.com> <50179581.9070805@gmail.com> <CACfq091K=1DUOee4LorPPSoEV8KnT570GGXDA01mHDrV12kKiQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120802051805.P3345@besplex.bde.org> <5019ED93.8060802@gmail.com> <20120802173441.X1291@besplex.bde.org> <501A72AE.30309@gmail.com> <20120803001044.X2863@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2012/8/2 22:17, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, David Xu wrote: > >> On 2012/8/2 16:12, Bruce Evans wrote: >>> ... >>> I made similar patches for sockets (to set POLLHUP on hangup (now in >>> -current) and to not set POLLIN on hangup unless there is still data >>> to be read). I started killing POLLINIGNEOF for sockets. -current >>> added it for nameless pipes instead :-(. With the new fifo >>> implementation, POLLINIGNEOF is even more of a mistake for sockets, >>> but more needed for pipes since named pipes are fifos. >>> ... >> I think you can kill POLLINIGNEOF at all, I have grepped, and there >> is no external user, >> only pipe and socket code use it internally. The POLLINIGNEOF is >> confusing because >> it has same prefix with POLLIN, POLLOUT and other POLL flags. > > Did you grep all of google for it :-). All of ports should be enough. > > Uses of it in the kernel are certainly gone, but it was intentionally > put in the user API to previde a workaround for the policy that was > hard-coded in the kernel. The policy changed slightly, and you could > set POLLINIGNEOF to either go back to the old policy or get the new > policy for more cases. Hopefully this was never actually used except > for testing and termporary workarounds. But it was expanded to work > on nameless pipes as well as fifos and sockets. > > Bruce > I don't know it is used by some ports. :-) Anyway, if people don't agree my patches, it is not a problem to me, because I always can apply them locally, though named pipe may be less useful from offical release. Thanks,
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?501A908B.9010001>