[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimAxbVWzahU8Ke_Rb8bgiVVrsihRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 15:21:27 -0700
From: Nemo Publius <nemo@...f-evident.org>
To: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Does Linux select() violate POSIX?
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Bernd Petrovitsch
<bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at> wrote:
> On Sam, 2011-06-18 at 11:51 -0700, Nemo Publius wrote:
>
> Then you should reformulate your question because the answer is
> technically correct.
First of all, had you bothered to read the very next sentence in the
Email to which you felt the need to reply, you would find I did
precisely that:
"Of course I am talking about select() followed by recv() without
any intervening user-space operations on the descriptor."
Second, you are wrong. I basically asked, "Is select() followed by
recv() guaranteed not to block?"
Possible answers include:
"No; your computer might crash."
"No; your kernel image might be corrupt."
"No; space aliens might destroy the earth."
"No; some other process might access the descriptor in the meantime."
All of these are "technically" correct. All of them are also
completely useless. You -- and everyone else who read my question --
know _exactly_ what I was asking.
And I got my answer, which is yes, Linux select() violates POSIX, and
that decision is deliberate.
But again, thank you so much for your valuable contribution to the discussion.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists