On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:33:14 -0400 Milosz Tanski <mil...@adfin.com> wrote:
> > - Non-blocking I/O has long been supported with a well-understood set > > of operations - O_NONBLOCK and fcntl(). Why do we need a different > > mechanism here - one that's only understood in the context of > > buffered file I/O? I assume you didn't want to implement support > > for poll() and all that, but is that a good enough reason to add a > > new Linux-specific non-blocking I/O technique? > > I realized that I didn't answer this question well in my other long > email. O_NONBLOCK doesn't work on files under any commonly used OS, > and people have gotten use to this behavior so I doubt we could change > that without breaking a lot of folks applications. So I'm not contesting this, but I am genuinely curious: do you think there are applications out there requesting non-blocking behavior on regular files that will then break if they actually get non-blocking behavior? I don't suppose you have an example? Thanks, jon -- 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/
