* Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011221 08:27] wrote:
>
> I think it should be more like:
>
> if (ap->a_events & POLLIN)
> ap->a_events = (ap->a_events & ~POLLIN) | POLLIN_IGNORE_EOF;
>
> We can't pass in flags that we don't really care about (POLLIN in
> this case) since
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > * Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011217 07:10] wrote:
> > > I'm not happy with frobbing the socket state. I suggest frobbing the
> > > events mask instead. Either use a flag to tell sopoll() to ignore
> > > SS_CANTRCVMORE, or use new events POL
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011217 12:47] wrote:
> * Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011217 07:10] wrote:
>
> > > +
> > > filetmp.f_data = (caddr_t)ap->a_vp->v_fifoinfo->fi_readsock;
> > > + so = (struct socket *)filetmp.f_data;
> > > + s = splnet();
> > > +
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011217 07:10] wrote:
> > > +
> > > filetmp.f_data = (caddr_t)ap->a_vp->v_fifoinfo->fi_readsock;
> > > + so = (struct socket *)filetmp.f_data;
> > > + s = splnet();
> > > + oflg = so
* Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011217 07:10] wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > Can people take a look at this fix? It seems to dtrt, but I need feedback
> > here.
> >
> > It basically backs out my last two revisions and changes the hacks the
> > poll call to seeming
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Can people take a look at this fix? It seems to dtrt, but I need feedback
> here.
>
> It basically backs out my last two revisions and changes the hacks the
> poll call to seemingly do the right thing.
>
> Index: fifo_vnops.c
> =
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011215 15:10] wrote:
>
> Can people take a look at this fix? It seems to dtrt, but I need feedback
> here.
>
> It basically backs out my last two revisions and changes the hacks the
> poll call to seemingly do the right thing.
I'm about ready to commit t
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011213 12:08] wrote:
> * Bruce Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011213 05:56] wrote:
> >
> > >From POSIX.1-200x-draft7 (this has not changed since at least the 1990
> > version):
> >
> > ! 36609 When attempting to read from an empty pipe or FIFO:
>