From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Riedy Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pack-objects: be incredibly anal about stdio semantics Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2006 15:12:54 -0700 Message-ID: <15051.1144015974@lotus.CS.Berkeley.EDU> References: X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 03 00:13:01 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FQAoc-0001Yx-Ch for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:12:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932407AbWDBWMz (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:12:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932423AbWDBWMz (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:12:55 -0400 Received: from lotus.CS.Berkeley.EDU ([128.32.36.222]:10138 "EHLO lotus.CS.Berkeley.EDU") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932407AbWDBWMy (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Apr 2006 18:12:54 -0400 Received: from lotus.CS.Berkeley.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lotus.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.8/8.12.8/3.141592645) with ESMTP id k32MCsgH015053 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lotus.CS.Berkeley.EDU (ejr@localhost) by lotus.CS.Berkeley.EDU (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id k32MCsPX015052 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2006 15:12:54 -0700 (PDT) To: git@vger.kernel.org In-reply-to: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: And Linus Torvalds writes: - - I don't have any really strong opinions on it. I think that any libc that - needs the "ferror()" test + EINTR loopback is totally broken. I would - happily say that people should just not use a development platform that is - that horrible. If you consider stdio to be a low-level wrapper over syscalls that only adds buffering and simple parsing, then passing EINTR back to the application is a sensible choice. I wouldn't be too surprised if L4, VxWorks, etc. do something similar. - So I _think_ we're safe with just the "sigaction()" diff. Neither of the - patches _should_ make any difference at all on a sane platform. Anyone with an older HP/UX care to try these patches? HP/UX may not be sane, but I think it may lack SA_RESTART. I don't know if stdio calls need restarted, though. Jason