Hi David!
On 5/24/18 9:45 PM, David Holmes wrote:
I looked but did not review - it was just an observation :)
Well, thank you anyway :)
It seems pointless to double up these condition checks everywhere
just in case there is some platform (do we know of one?) where this
may be necessary.
That's exactly what man pages suggest: "...a portable application
should check for both..."
Yes but that's the native code that calls the library methods. That
doesn't necessarily mean we have to propagate the ambiguity through
our own native wrappers and/or Java code.
Ah, I didn't immediately understood you're talking about constants in
UnixConstants.java and LinuxWatchService.java.
This part might probably be skipped (because we know that on Linux the
constants have the same values), but I thought it's better it add it for
consistency.
In other parts of the fix we do treat the constants uniformly and
propagate some non-ambiguous value to Java, like returning
IOS_UNAVAILABLE in most cases.
And yes, there exist such platforms.
I also wonder whether a smart compiler might not flag code where the
errors do infact have the same value:
if (errno == 11 || errno == 11) ...
At least gcc -O completely removes the second redundant test, so no
observable changes is expected on supported platforms.
I'm more worried about a new compiler warning - especially if you
happened to use them in a switch! - resulting in future build failures.
What compiler do you mean: gcc or javac?
If gcc, then we already have the same test for both constants in code
with no issues.
For example, java.base/unix/native/libnet/SocketInputStream.c, in
NET_ReadWithTimeout():
result = NET_NonBlockingRead(fd, bufP, len);
if (result == -1 && ((errno == EAGAIN) || (errno ==
EWOULDBLOCK))) {
If javac, then, I was thinking about it too, but I don't have a good a
universal solution to propose right now.
If one day someone needs to use these (platform dependent by definition)
constants in switch, one will need to invent something to workaround the
fact that some constants may have the same values on some platforms.
With respect to EAGAIN and EWOULDBLOCK, it will be caught early enough
because it will fail during the very first build on any currently
supported Unix platform.
With kind regards,
Ivan
Cheers,
David
With kind regards,
Ivan
Cheers,
David
On 25/05/2018 6:57 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
On Unix systems several system calls (including pread, read, readv,
recvfrom, recvmsg, send, sendfile, sendmsg, sendto) may set errno
to either EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK on the same condition.
On Linux these two constants are the same, but they are not
required to be the same.
For example, here's an extract from the Linux man page of send():
EAGAIN or EWOULDBLOCK
The socket is marked nonblocking and the requested operation
would block. POSIX.1-2001 allows either error to be returned for
this case, and does not require these constants to have the same
value, so a portable application should check for both possibilities.
We should check for both error codes when appropriate.
Would you please help review the fix?
BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8203369
WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8203369/00/webrev/
Thanks!
--
With kind regards,
Ivan Gerasimov
