On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 05:58:44PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > I thought you were going to introduce a new flag instead of using > O_NONBLOCK for this. I dug up an old email that suggested that enabling > O_NONBLOCK for regular files (well, a device node in this case) broke a > cd ripping or burning application. I also found this old bugzilla, > which states that squid would fail to start, and that gqview was also > broken: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=136057
That is why we avoid looking a the per-open O_NONBLOCK flag, and only apply it per I/O. As mentioned in my last mail it's not quite as trivial but still fairly easy to also do that for writes. > I don't think O_NONBLOCK is the right flag. What you're really > specifying is a flag that prevents I/O in the read path, and nowhere > else. As such, I'd feel much better about this if we defined a new flag > (O_NONBLOCK_READ maybe? No, that's too verbose.). > > In summary, I like the idea, but I worry about overloading O_NONBLOCK. There's a fair argument we could use a different namespace for the per-I/O ops, and it seems like Miklos already implemented this for the next version. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
