From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lpk4X-0001FP-MQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:08:41 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lpk4S-0001C3-T7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:08:41 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=41948 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lpk4S-0001Bq-BE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:08:36 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:52333) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lpk4R-0003UH-L4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:08:35 -0400 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n33E8YF2018946 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:08:34 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n33E8ZYw029170 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:08:35 -0400 Received: from pike.pond.sub.org (vpn-10-63.str.redhat.com [10.32.10.63]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n33E8YLK021057 for ; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:08:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [patch 04/10] qemu: introduce main_loop_break References: <20090325224714.853788328@amt.cnet> <20090325225438.990466524@amt.cnet> <20090326122717.GB20866@shareable.org> <20090402233621.GA4599@amt.cnet> <49D54FB4.9000606@codemonkey.ws> From: Markus Armbruster Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:08:32 +0200 In-Reply-To: <49D54FB4.9000606@codemonkey.ws> (Anthony Liguori's message of "Thu\, 02 Apr 2009 18\:52\:20 -0500") Message-ID: <87hc154yov.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Anthony Liguori writes: > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >> I didnt know. Anthony wrote this code, so I'll let him comment. >> > Is this guaranteed by Posix and reliable across Unixes? In general, I > think it's better to be conservative with this sort of thing. For what it's worth, POSIX.1-2001 guarantees atomicity of up to PIPE_BUF bytes, and PIPE_BUF must be at least 512. See pipe(7). More modern chapter & verse is online: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/write.html http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/limits.h.html A note on select() bugs related to PIPE_BUF in some ancient crap: http://cr.yp.to/docs/unixport.html