On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote: > Kev wrote: > > If that's true, I confess I can't quite see your point even still. Once > > the event is generated, ircd should read or write as much as it can, then > > not pay any attention to the socket until readiness is again signaled by > > the generation of an event. Sorry if I'm being dense here... > > If you actually do read or write *until an EWOULDBLOCK*, no problem. > If your code has a path where it fails to do so, it will get stuck, > as no further readiness events will be forthcoming. That's all.
It seems kind of odd, at first, but it does make sense in a inverted sort of way. Basically you aren't going to get any signals from the kernel until the EWOULDBLOCK state clears. Consider what would happen if you received a signal every time you could, say send. Your process would be flooded with signals, which of course wouldn't work. If you want to take a look at the Hybrid-7 cvs tree, let me know and I can give you a copy of it. I just got the sigio stuff working correctly in their. Regards, Aaron
