From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 03:25:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 03:25:40 -0400 Received: from h24-78-175-24.vn.shawcable.net ([24.78.175.24]:39052 "EHLO oof.localnet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 03:25:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 00:24:39 -0700 From: Simon Kirby To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: O_NONBLOCK on files Message-ID: <20010919002439.A21138@netnation.com> In-Reply-To: <20010918234648.A21010@netnation.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 01:05:06AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Besides the SUS or the POSIX specs... Yeah, well, blah. > What would cause the data to be read in if read just checks the caches? > With sockets the other side is clearing pushing or pulling the data. With > files there is no other side... Hmm...Without even thinking about it, I assumed it would start a read and select() or poll() or some later call would return readable when my outstanding request was fulfilled. But yes, I guess you're right, this is different behavior because there is no other side. Reading a file would need a receive queue to make this work, I guess. :) Simon- [ Stormix Technologies Inc. ][ NetNation Communications Inc. ] [ sim@stormix.com ][ sim@netnation.com ] [ Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employers. ]