Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why do you say that? I have never known of such behavior. Linux does not
> do it. FreeBSD does not do it. Those are the systems that it's handy for
> me to check right now, but I don't know of any reason to ever have
> suspected such a behavior. There is nowadays some standard that specifies
> select, though I only have 1003.1-1996 (which does not). I would be
> surprised if it required, or even allowed, such an error diagnosis
> given the state of extant systems.
Well, the Linux manpage on my Debian system for select has:
EBADF An invalid file descriptor was given in one of the
sets.
I interpreted that to include both a totally bogus number as well as
one being used inappropriately. But I guess it's ok to let them
through silently.
Linux pipe code, for example, will let you have a pipe open only for
writing, and still poll on read for that pipe, AFAICT. That's so
totally wrong; we should not duplicate that.
So I don't mind replacing such errors with "no response" results; but
I strongly object to letting people getting poll results for read (or
write) on an fd that they don't have open for reading (or writing).
Replacing the error case with a "just return no" case is fine by me,
but don't just elide the check entirely.
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
