From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
Subject: Re: O_NONBLOCK for regular files
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 08:42:59 +0000
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <20040318084259.GH31500@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <20040318083628.A25565@infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:5775 "EHLO
	www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262011AbUCRInA
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 18 Mar 2004 03:43:00 -0500
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040318083628.A25565@infradead.org>
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 08:36:28AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Guy,
> 
> any opinion on whether we should allow O_NONBLOCK for regular files?
> XFS currently has this in as a leftover from IRIX, it's used to to allow
> the HSM support code in XFS (not in the kernel.org code due to the horrible
> design, just in the oss.sgi.com tree) to return EAGAIN to the nfs server
> so it doesn't block all nfsd threads on possible long-enduring HSM operations.
> 
> People want to bring that thing over to Linux now which brought that
> O_NONBLOCK thing on my radar.   I don't see any direct problems with this
> thing, but I don't want it as an undocumented XFS extension.

How do they handle fcntl() (re)setting O_NONBLOCK?