Re: [PATCH 2/2] pack-objects: be incredibly anal about stdio semantics
- From
Jason Riedy <ejr@eecs.berkeley.edu>
- Date
- Apr 2, 2006, 22:12 UTC
- Message-ID
- <15051.1144015974@lotus.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0604021417301.23419@g5.osdl.org>
And Linus Torvalds writes: - - I don't have any really strong opinions on it. I think that any libc that - needs the "ferror()" test + EINTR loopback is totally broken. I would - happily say that people should just not use a development platform that is - that horrible.
If you consider stdio to be a low-level wrapper over syscalls that only adds buffering and simple parsing, then passing EINTR back to the application is a sensible choice. I wouldn't be too surprised if L4, VxWorks, etc. do something similar.
- So I _think_ we're safe with just the "sigaction()" diff. Neither of the - patches _should_ make any difference at all on a sane platform.
Anyone with an older HP/UX care to try these patches? HP/UX may not be sane, but I think it may lack SA_RESTART. I don't know if stdio calls need restarted, though.
Jason