From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-serial <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ivan <athlon_@mail.ru>
Subject: Re: man termios
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:21:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <532C20B7.2070806@hurleysoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKgNAkisMs4A15B7ts+bAkUY5bcoTTGdE81ur10K3hZoFLxbxw@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/21/2014 06:45 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> This is also true of the other non-canonical
>> read()'s with timeout (TIME > 0).
>
> Here, if I understand you correctly, you mean this case:
> * TIME > 0
> * MIN == 0
> * O_NONBLOCK set on the FD
> * No input available
>
> You are saying that read() returns 0 in this case? This doesn't appear
> to me to be correct (on Linux). How did you verify this?
Apologies, my mistake here.
(aside: O_NONBLOCK can be changed while the reader is blocked, but that's
not what I meant originally, and I wouldn't document it there)
>> 'man termios' is silent here, but 62.6.2 in LPI implies that O_NONBLOCK will
>> return -1 with errno==EAGAIN; it does not.
>
> I guess you are referring to this text in TLPI:
Yes.
> [[
> This mode is somewhat similar to setting the O_NONBLOCK flag for the
> terminal (Section 5.9). However, with O_NONBLOCK, if no bytes are
> available for reading, then read() returns –1 with the error
> EAGAIN.
> ]]
>
> Oops. The text was not meant to imply that. Rather the comparison was
> intended to be with O_NONBLOCK *in canonical mode*. However, I agree
> that I could have made that more explicit. (I'll add an erratum to
> mention canonical mode.)
>
>> This is unspecified by POSIX (11.1.7).
>
> Yep, I see. XBD 11.1.7 says:
>
> [[
> Therefore, if O_NONBLOCK is set, read( ) may return immediately,
> regardless of the setting of MIN or TIME. Also, if no data is
> available, read( ) may either return 0, or return -1 with errno set to
> [EAGAIN].
> ]]
>
> So, it seems to be saying that either behavior is allowed, right?
Exactly.
> And as far as I can see, for the TIME>0 case on Linux, read() returns
> -1 + EGAIN.
You're right about the TIME>0 case.
> In any case, I've added this text to termios(3):
>
> POSIX does not specify whether the setting of the O_NONBLOCK
> file status flag takes precedence over the MIN and TIME set‐
> tings. If O_NONBLOCK is set, a read() in noncanonical mode may
> return immediately, regardless of the setting of MIN or TIME.
> Furthermore, if no data is available, POSIX permits a read() in
> noncanonical mode to return either 0, or -1 with errno set to
> EAGAIN.
Great; I think that will really help clarify the usage wrt O_NONBLOCK.
>> Secondly, in all 4 of the non-canonical read() modes, the MIN value does not
>> limit the number of bytes which may be returned by the read(). Only the
>> 'count' parameter to read() has this effect.
>>
>> LPI has this to say (man-pages reads similar):
>>
>> "MIN > 0, TIME == 0 (blocking read)
>>
>> The read() blocks (possibly indefinitely) until the lesser of the number of
>> bytes requested or MIN bytes are available, and returns the lesser of the
>> two values."
>>
>> However, read() may unblock when MIN bytes are available but return up to
>> the 'count' parameter if more input arrives in between waking and copying
>> into the user buffer.
>
> Yup, you are obviously correct. It would make no sense for read() to
> return the lesser of [MIN, count]. I got myself into a small thinko as
> I wrote that text.
>
> I've applied this patch to the termios.3 page:
>
> [[
> diff --git a/man3/termios.3 b/man3/termios.3
> index b069ec0..63aba07 100644
> --- a/man3/termios.3
> +++ b/man3/termios.3
> @@ -728,8 +728,7 @@ completes; there are four distinct cases:
> MIN == 0; TIME == 0:
> If data is available,
> .BR read (2)
> -returns immediately, with the lesser of the number of bytes
> -available, or the number of bytes requested.
> +returns immediately, returning up to the number of bytes requested.
> If no data is available,
> .BR read (2)
> returns 0.
> ]]
>
> I'll write a similar erratum for TLPI.
Thanks.
> [...]
>
>> Finally, if the 'count' parameter is less than MIN, read() may return before
>> MIN bytes have been received, if 'count' bytes have been received.
>
> Yes. But it's not clear to me here: do you mean that something in the
> man page (or in TLPI) needs fixing?
Well, what I mean here is that read() may also _not_ return until MIN bytes have
been received, even if 'count' bytes have been received.
Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Cc: linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-serial <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ivan <athlon_@mail.ru>
Subject: Re: man termios
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 07:21:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <532C20B7.2070806@hurleysoftware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKgNAkisMs4A15B7ts+bAkUY5bcoTTGdE81ur10K3hZoFLxbxw@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/21/2014 06:45 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> This is also true of the other non-canonical
>> read()'s with timeout (TIME > 0).
>
> Here, if I understand you correctly, you mean this case:
> * TIME > 0
> * MIN == 0
> * O_NONBLOCK set on the FD
> * No input available
>
> You are saying that read() returns 0 in this case? This doesn't appear
> to me to be correct (on Linux). How did you verify this?
Apologies, my mistake here.
(aside: O_NONBLOCK can be changed while the reader is blocked, but that's
not what I meant originally, and I wouldn't document it there)
>> 'man termios' is silent here, but 62.6.2 in LPI implies that O_NONBLOCK will
>> return -1 with errno==EAGAIN; it does not.
>
> I guess you are referring to this text in TLPI:
Yes.
> [[
> This mode is somewhat similar to setting the O_NONBLOCK flag for the
> terminal (Section 5.9). However, with O_NONBLOCK, if no bytes are
> available for reading, then read() returns –1 with the error
> EAGAIN.
> ]]
>
> Oops. The text was not meant to imply that. Rather the comparison was
> intended to be with O_NONBLOCK *in canonical mode*. However, I agree
> that I could have made that more explicit. (I'll add an erratum to
> mention canonical mode.)
>
>> This is unspecified by POSIX (11.1.7).
>
> Yep, I see. XBD 11.1.7 says:
>
> [[
> Therefore, if O_NONBLOCK is set, read( ) may return immediately,
> regardless of the setting of MIN or TIME. Also, if no data is
> available, read( ) may either return 0, or return -1 with errno set to
> [EAGAIN].
> ]]
>
> So, it seems to be saying that either behavior is allowed, right?
Exactly.
> And as far as I can see, for the TIME>0 case on Linux, read() returns
> -1 + EGAIN.
You're right about the TIME>0 case.
> In any case, I've added this text to termios(3):
>
> POSIX does not specify whether the setting of the O_NONBLOCK
> file status flag takes precedence over the MIN and TIME set‐
> tings. If O_NONBLOCK is set, a read() in noncanonical mode may
> return immediately, regardless of the setting of MIN or TIME.
> Furthermore, if no data is available, POSIX permits a read() in
> noncanonical mode to return either 0, or -1 with errno set to
> EAGAIN.
Great; I think that will really help clarify the usage wrt O_NONBLOCK.
>> Secondly, in all 4 of the non-canonical read() modes, the MIN value does not
>> limit the number of bytes which may be returned by the read(). Only the
>> 'count' parameter to read() has this effect.
>>
>> LPI has this to say (man-pages reads similar):
>>
>> "MIN > 0, TIME == 0 (blocking read)
>>
>> The read() blocks (possibly indefinitely) until the lesser of the number of
>> bytes requested or MIN bytes are available, and returns the lesser of the
>> two values."
>>
>> However, read() may unblock when MIN bytes are available but return up to
>> the 'count' parameter if more input arrives in between waking and copying
>> into the user buffer.
>
> Yup, you are obviously correct. It would make no sense for read() to
> return the lesser of [MIN, count]. I got myself into a small thinko as
> I wrote that text.
>
> I've applied this patch to the termios.3 page:
>
> [[
> diff --git a/man3/termios.3 b/man3/termios.3
> index b069ec0..63aba07 100644
> --- a/man3/termios.3
> +++ b/man3/termios.3
> @@ -728,8 +728,7 @@ completes; there are four distinct cases:
> MIN == 0; TIME == 0:
> If data is available,
> .BR read (2)
> -returns immediately, with the lesser of the number of bytes
> -available, or the number of bytes requested.
> +returns immediately, returning up to the number of bytes requested.
> If no data is available,
> .BR read (2)
> returns 0.
> ]]
>
> I'll write a similar erratum for TLPI.
Thanks.
> [...]
>
>> Finally, if the 'count' parameter is less than MIN, read() may return before
>> MIN bytes have been received, if 'count' bytes have been received.
>
> Yes. But it's not clear to me here: do you mean that something in the
> man page (or in TLPI) needs fixing?
Well, what I mean here is that read() may also _not_ return until MIN bytes have
been received, even if 'count' bytes have been received.
Regards,
Peter Hurley
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-21 11:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-20 18:42 man termios Peter Hurley
2014-03-21 10:45 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-03-21 10:45 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-03-21 11:21 ` Peter Hurley [this message]
2014-03-21 11:21 ` Peter Hurley
2014-03-21 13:15 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-03-21 14:03 ` Peter Hurley
2014-03-21 14:03 ` Peter Hurley
2014-03-21 14:17 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-03-21 14:17 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-03-21 14:51 ` Peter Hurley
2014-03-21 14:51 ` Peter Hurley
2014-03-21 15:41 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2014-03-21 16:11 ` Peter Hurley
2014-03-21 18:45 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=532C20B7.2070806@hurleysoftware.com \
--to=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=athlon_@mail.ru \
--cc=gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.