[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa6de786ee1241c6ba54c3cce0b980aa@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 09:31:52 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Linus Torvalds' <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC: Franck Grosjean <fgrosjea@...hat.com>,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] pipe: Make a partially-satisfied blocking read wait for
more
From: Linus Torvalds
> Sent: 23 June 2023 23:42
>
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 at 15:34, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can you consider merging something like the attached patch? Unfortunately,
> > there are applications out there that depend on a read from pipe() waiting
> > until the buffer is full under some circumstances. Patch a28c8b9db8a1
> > removed the conditionality on there being an attached writer.
>
> This patch seems actively wrong, in that now it's possibly waiting for
> data that won't come, even if it's nonblocking.
I think it pretty much breaks:
command | tee file
where 'command' is careful to fflush(stdout).
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists