On Wed, May 11 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Also, returning -EOVERFLOW is not exactly correct here, because you'd
> violate POSIX specification of read(), right ?
Maybe we could piggyback on:
EINVAL fd was created via a call to timerfd_create(2) and the
wrong size buffer was given to read();
But I kinda agree. I’m not sure how much we need to care about this
instead of having user space round their buffers up to the nearest max
packet size boundary.
--
Best regards
ミハウ “𝓶𝓲𝓷𝓪86” ナザレヴイツ
«If at first you don’t succeed, give up skydiving»
