On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 07:58:23PM -0800, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > Matt Mackall wrote: > >_Neither_ case mentions signals and the "and will return as many bytes > >as requested" is clearly just a restatement of "does not have this > >limit". Whoever copied this comment to the manpage was a bit sloppy > >and dropped the first clause rather than the second: > > It still means the documented API says there are no short reads.
I maintain that it's ambiguous. And read(2) makes it clear that short reads can happen any time, any where. Further, your interpretation makes for a nonsensical API as it implies being uninterruptible for arbitrary lengths of time. Changing the longstanding, sensible code to match a silly and highly non-standard interpretation of the documentation doesn't fix the problem in apps either. Presumably they'll still be running on kernels older than 2.6.11 and I believe most *BSDs have /dev/urandom as well. > >So anyone doing a read() can expect a short read regardless of the fd > >and is quite clear that reads can be interrupted by signals. "It is > >not an error". Ever. > > Of course are signal interruptions wrong if the signal uses SA_RESTART. That's a separate problem. I'll take a look at fixing that. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
