Re: [PATCH] sendfile removal
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 22:50:37 -0700
Jens Axboe wrote:
I would personally argue that sendfile() blocking on an O_NONBLOCK
desriptor, as opposed to returning EAGAIN, is a bug, and a fairly
serious such.
I agree, but it's still a change in behaviour. Even if we consider the
app buggy (it is), can we potentially break it?
It depends on which app it is, of course. However, I think we have to
smoke that out the hard way. I don't think we should retain a bug in
the kernel just because some unknown app might depend on that bug --
taking that to the extreme we could never fix bugs at all...
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] sendfile removal
- From: Eric Dumazet
- Re: [PATCH] sendfile removal
- References:
- Re: [PATCH] sendfile removal
- From: H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] sendfile removal
- From: Jens Axboe
- Re: [PATCH] sendfile removal
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] sendfile removal (nfsd update)
- Next by Date: Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFD] BIO_RW_BARRIER - what it means for devices, filesystems, and dm/md.
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] sendfile removal
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] sendfile removal
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|