Re: slow open() calls and o_nonblock

> Now, I'm a userspace guy so I can be pretty dense, but shouldn't a
> call with a nonblocking flag return EAGAIN if its going to take
> anywhere near 415ms?  

Violation of causality. We don't know it will block for 415ms until 415ms
have elapsed. 

Alan
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: slow open() calls and o_nonblock
    • From: "Aaron Wiebe" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • slow open() calls and o_nonblock
    • From: "Aaron Wiebe" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: 2.6.22-rc[23]: blinking capslock led, stuck keys?
• Next by Date: Re: [Patch 06/18] fs/logfs/compr.c
• Previous by thread: Re: slow open() calls and o_nonblock
• Next by thread: Re: slow open() calls and o_nonblock
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]