In Jehanne, I decided to test both: if the queue is not closed there's no
need to check up->errstr.
Thanks for your help!
Giacomo
2017-05-15 18:12 GMT+02:00 Charles Forsyth :
>
> On 15 May 2017 at 16:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't the
On 15 May 2017 at 16:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Shouldn't the waserror code check that the queue has been actually closed?
Either that or check errstr against Ehungup, since that's the exact error
it incurred.
The latter has the advantage of not obscuring a different error if
I've just noticed a strange behaviour in devpipe that occurs on both
9front and Plan 9.
When the write blocks, if a note interrupt the process, the waserror
in pipewrite and pipebwrite will post another note that says "sys:
write on a closed pipe ..."
However the pipe is actually open, and still
Thanks Charles!
Giacomo
2017-05-15 12:32 GMT+02:00 Charles Forsyth :
>
> On 15 May 2017 at 11:05, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>>
>> Is there any fs/device in Plan9 that can easily provide such behaviour?
>
>
> Bind #| to a name and fill up one of the data
On 15 May 2017 at 11:05, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Is there any fs/device in Plan9 that can easily provide such behaviour?
Bind #| to a name and fill up one of the data files (blocks at 256k on my
system, might be 32k on small ones).
Hi, to write a test I'm looking for an easy way to have a write()
blocking forever.
Is there any fs/device in Plan9 that can easily provide such behaviour?
Giacomo