Re: close fd while select/poll/epoll
- From: David Schwartz <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:16:35 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 4, 8:33 pm, phil-news-nos...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
A standard sure can say what will happening in a given 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 cannot know
it is not in case A, then any behavior legal for case A is legal in
that case.
There is simply no rational reason for a standard to prohibit
*undetectable* violations of its terms. So they all contain an 'as if'
rule that basically says that the standard only specifies the
observable behavior of the implementation, and the implementation is
free to violate the wording of the standard provided such a violation
is unobservable (cannot be detected *ever* by *any* compliant
program).
If the program cannot be sure it is not in case A, then no matter what
the standard says, the behavior permitted for case A is permitted for
the case the program is in.
DS
.
- 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
- 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
|