Non-blocking I/O and EWOULDBLOCK vs. EAGAIN (retransmitted)
John Quarterman
jsq at ut-sally.UUCP
Wed Jul 24 03:46:19 AEST 1985
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 85 16:41:57 PDT
From: seismo!sun!guy (Guy Harris)
To: ut-sally!std-unix
Subject: Non-blocking I/O and EWOULDBLOCK vs. EAGAIN
The /usr/group standards committee has essentially adopted 4.2BSD-style
non-blocking I/O, rather than System V-style non-blocking I/O. The System V
Interface Definition says that System V will be changed to match the
/usr/group standard.
However,
1) as the S5ID states, this may break existing code as it isn't
compatible with existing System V implementations.
and
2) it's not compatible with 4.2BSD, either, because they return
EAGAIN if a non-blocking operation would have blocked had the
descriptor been in non-blocking mode, rather than EWOULDBLOCK.
Is there a good reason for constructing a new specification, incompatible
with *all* existing systems, rather than adopting the existing 4.2BSD
facility which provides the same functionality and merely uses a different
error code? "The committee didn't want to add a new error code" is an
extremely bad reason, as they have already added new error codes for the
benefit of file locking. UNIX error codes are far too overloaded already;
the problem should not be compounded.
Guy Harris
------------------------------
Discussions-Of: UNIX standards, particularly the IEEE P1003 draft standard.
Submissions-To: ut-sally!std-unix or std-unix at ut-sally.ARPA
Comments-To: ut-sally!std-unix-request or std-unix-request at ut-sally.ARPA
UUCP-Routes: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!std-unix
Archives-In: ~ftp/pub/mod.std.unix on ut-sally.ARPA (soon sally.UTEXAS.EDU)
More information about the Mod.std.unix
mailing list