Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- From: phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 6 Feb 2008 04:35:57 GMT
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:19:44 -0800 (PST) David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| On Feb 4, 8:33 pm, phil-news-nos...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
|
|> A standard sure can say what will happening in a given scenario.
|
| Only if a conforming application can create that scenario.
|
|> Just
|> because there might be the very slightest possibility of a program not
|> succeeding in creating that scenario ONE TIME out of a BILLION does not
|> mean we can't understand the scenario AND define how the kernel is to
|> behave when the scenario does happen 999999999 times out of 1000000000.
|
| Yes, that's exactly what it means.
|
| If a compliant program can never be certain it has created the
| scenario, it can never demonstrate a violation if it doesn't get the
| behavior required for the scenario. The 'as-if' rule in every standard
| says that only behavior that can be detected by a compliant program
| can be specified by the standard.
The test program can TRY to create the situation. It may, or may not,
succeed at creating it. But it can KNOW whether it succeeded or not.
If it succeeded, it can examine the results for correct behaviour.
If it failed, it can report that it needs to be re-run for a valid
test of the (suggested) standard. If a test program only rarely is
able to create the scenario, it would be considered of low value.
If a test program only rarely fails to create the scenario, then it
would be good enough, especially if wrapped in a script that checks
for the failure and automatically reruns it to try again.
| If a compliant program cannot create case A and be sure it has not
| created case B, the standard *cannot* say that the behavior in case B
| is not legal in case A.
I only am suggesting a new behaviour in one case, not two.
| This is, honestly, one of the most important things to understand
| about standards, and it surprises me that people still don't
| understand it.
Maybe you should try to explain better. Either your whole idea is just
totally wrong (and this might explain why some standards have avoided
doing some things we've), or you haven't done a very good job of
explaining the concept you seem to be trying to explain. Of course it
does not help much to say something is impossible when it seems to be
so clearly very possible.
| If a compliant program cannot know that it is not in case B, then the
| standard cannot prohibit the behavior it permits in case B. It's that
| simple.
Not all programs need to even care. The TEST program needs to care.
And what I proposed involves a scenario that CAN be reliably tested
for, even if it cannot be reliably created.
--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2008-02-05-2228@xxxxxxxx |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
.
- References:
- close fd while select/poll/epoll
- From: shebble
- Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- From: shebble
- Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- From: David Schwartz
- Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- From: David Schwartz
- close fd while select/poll/epoll
- Prev by Date: Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- Next by Date: Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- Previous by thread: Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- Next by thread: Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
