On Sat, 2022-09-17 at 02:50 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2022 12:59:24 -0400
> From: "David H. Gutteridge"
> Message-ID:
>
> | So there will be information loss there, at minimum. Whether that
> ends
> | up being significant at some point, I guess w
On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 at 20:14:23 +, David Holland wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 01:39:16PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > Then, shouldn't the open(2) (and posix_openpt(3)) at least fail with
> > EINVAL or something if other flags are specified?
>
> The man page says:
>
> Note that unl
On Fri, 23 Sep 2022, David Holland wrote:
While my inclination would be to make it work, until someone wants to
figure out how to do that it seems straightforward to make O_NONBLOCK
fail:
Index: tty_ptm.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/src
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 01:39:16PM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > Then, shouldn't the open(2) (and posix_openpt(3)) at least fail with
> > EINVAL or something if other flags are specified?
>
> The man page says:
>
> Note that unlike implementations on some other operating systems,
On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 at 11:49:32 + (UTC), RVP wrote:
On Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Anthony Mallet wrote:
Then, shouldn't the open(2) (and posix_openpt(3)) at least fail with
EINVAL or something if other flags are specified?
Yes, this was noticed recently by gutteridge@ (I think) who also
amended the
Hi,
is this item already developed in netBSD or should I start looking into it ?
https://wiki.netbsd.org/projects/project/ffs-fallocate/
On Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Anthony Mallet wrote:
Then, shouldn't the open(2) (and posix_openpt(3)) at least fail with
EINVAL or something if other flags are specified?
Yes, this was noticed recently by gutteridge@ (I think) who also
amended the manpage to what Martin just quoted (and which may not
> The man page says:
>
> Note that unlike implementations on some other operating systems,
> posix_openpt() does not return EINVAL if the value of oflag would
> be deemed invalid
Oh, right. I missed that...
I see that this was added 2 weeks ago and my base is from last March
only.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 01:26:00PM +0200, Anthony Mallet wrote:
> On Friday 23 Sep 2022, at 10:29, RVP wrote:
> > So, O_NONBLOCK is, at least, _definitely_ non-portable. Best to use
> > fcntl() here and not depend on a Linux-specific behaviour.
>
> Fair enough :)
>
> Then, shouldn't the open(2) (
On Friday 23 Sep 2022, at 10:29, RVP wrote:
> So, O_NONBLOCK is, at least, _definitely_ non-portable. Best to use
> fcntl() here and not depend on a Linux-specific behaviour.
Fair enough :)
Then, shouldn't the open(2) (and posix_openpt(3)) at least fail with
EINVAL or something if other flags are
On Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Anthony Mallet wrote:
* POSIX does not mention the flag as supported in posix_openpt(3) (it
does not says it's not supported either :).
According to POSIX, anything other than O_RDWR or O_NOCTTY is "unspecified";
and, the FreeBSD man page explicitly states:
O_RDWR
Hi,
I have a piece of software that opens a master pty non-blocking:
fd = open("/dev/ptmx", O_RDWR | O_NOCTTY | O_NONBLOCK);
The intent is to make further read(2) on the master non blocking. But
the O_NONBLOCK flag seems to be ignored. Attached is a minimal sample
C program showing the issue.
Se
12 matches
Mail list logo
