Re: Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter.
- From: Rainer Weikusat <rainer.weikusat@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:24:15 +0100
Grant Edwards <grante@xxxxxxxx> writes:
On 2006-11-25, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Grant Edwards <grante@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2006-11-25, Charles Sullivan <cwsulliv@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If that's the case, then that answers my questions. I thought
blocking meant blocking until the specified number of
characters is read, or until the read is interrupted.
Or until the driver decides to return for whatever reason it
chooses. On success, you're guaranteed a minimum of one byte.
Maybe. (Maybe not too!)
There's the case where the file is at EOF. Is there another
case where read() will return success with 0 bytes?
Yes. A non-blocking read from a UDP socket can return 0 octets read
instead of EAGAIN (at least on some Linux 2.4 versions).
.
- References:
- Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter.
- From: Charles Sullivan
- Re: Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter.
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter.
- From: Charles Sullivan
- Re: Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter.
- From: Grant Edwards
- Re: Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter.
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter.
- From: Grant Edwards
- Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter.
- Prev by Date: Re: Why does "system" have to block SIGCHLD?
- Next by Date: Re: Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter - THANKS!!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter.
- Next by thread: Re: Blocking read() from a USB->Serial adapter.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|