Re: [parisc-linux] Re: EWOULDBLOCK vs. EAGAIN

[GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>]

At Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:54:35 -0700,
Randolph Chung wrote:
> In reference to a message from John Marvin, dated Oct 22:
> > OK, I should have checked the archives first. It looks like this issue
> > has already come up. In that case we fixed the app. But I'm not comfortable
> > with the fact that we are different from every other architecture here.
> 
> John, I was refering to the suggestion Carlos made that we can "fix up"
> the return value in the syscall return path in glibc. Looks like there
> is already precedence for this sort of thing, and that way we retain
> binary compatibility with both hppa-linux and potentially with hpux.

I wonder it's not important changing EWOULDBLOCK -> EAGAIN to keep
hpux (or old sysv) compatibility...  Now SusV3 says EWOULDBLOCK may be
same as EAGAIN, a conforming implementation may assign the same
values. Are there any reasons to retain this?

I don't know whether hpux binary can run on hppa-linux or not,
but if EWOULDBLOCK is not same as EAGAIN, serious problem is occured?
I think keeping compatibity to other linux is more important than
hpux binaries... (Well, I'm not hppa-linux user, so please tell me
these status/circumstance).

> > P.S. I know most of you don't care, but the broken app in this case is
> > telnetd. It drops connections if you blast too much to stdout.
> 
> heh, now that you mention it, this explains some things...:-)

So, telnetd should be fixed...?

Regards,
-- gotom