Am Dienstag, den 19.02.2008, 22:25 +0100 schrieb Jens Axboe: > On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Johann Felix Soden wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 19 2008, Johann Felix Soden wrote: > > > > From: Johann Felix Soden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > With SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK sys_tee should return number of duplicated bytes, > > > > not only -EAGAIN on success. > > > > > > ? > > > > > > The current behaviour is to return bytes tee'd, or return -EAGAIN for > > > zero bytes if SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK is set. It doesn't return "-EAGAIN on > > > success", not sure what you mean there. > > > > > Sorry, my patch description was not correct. > > > > The new behavior of sys_tee with my patch is: > > - return -EAGAIN if there are no data in the pipe, but writer > > connected to the pipe, > > - return 0 if there are not writers connected > > - else return number of duplicated byte > > > > The old behavior was: return -EAGAIN or the number (>0) of duplicated > > bytes. > > Your patch has an odd way of achieving that goal, modify the real > location of the assignment instead of overriding something. That has the > potential to turn into another confusing bug later on, wondering why the > heck your return value isn't being passed back. > > Improvement is welcome though, you can't distuingish -EAGAIN on the > input side from the output side currently. >
I thought again about the problem and my patch: you are right, the patch is nonsense. I have learnt, that the correctness of a patch is not guaranteed by the (bad, but anyhow working) solution of the problem the patch was written for. Sorry for wasting your time. -- J. F. Soden -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
