On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 03:48:06PM -0700, David Pacheco wrote: > Sorry to reply to my own mail, but it's worse than I thought. The man > page is obviously wrong in the most literal reading (we don't return > ETIME if nget is updated...), but after looking at the code, I'm not > even sure what it's supposed to be saying. The code in the kernel > appears to return early with ETIME without consuming events in some > cases, but other times it goes and consumes events even after getting > ETIME. See:
> http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/uts/common/fs/portfs/port.c#1325 > > Note the check on line 1339. If it falls through because flags = 0 > (which it is in the common case for port_getn), we check for events > without modifying error. It's unclear if that's intentional - i.e. is > the code wrong in addition to the man page or just the man page? To my reading you have these possible conditions: - max == 0 and port_getn() returns 0 -> *nget will have been set to the number of events available. - port_getn() returns 0, or it returns -1 && errno is one of ETIME, EINTR, or EBADFD -> events may have been consumed and placed in list[], and *nget will have been set to the number of consumed events. - port_getn() returns -1 && errno is one of EBADF or EINVAL -> no events will have been consumed, list[] and *nget remain untouched. - port_getn() returns -1 && errno is EFAULT -> events will have been consumed, *nget will be set to the number of events consumed, and list[] is undefined. Nico -- _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list networking-discuss@opensolaris.org
