On 09/07/2018 15:21, Peter Maydell wrote: >> >> However, indeed it seems to me that the logic of the patch is backwards: >> >> - -1/EAGAIN should retry >> >> - 0 should *not* retry, because it means the other side has hung up > This seems weird, because it doesn't follow the usual pattern > for non-blocking functions, where 0 just means "nothing was > written" and actual error conditions like the other side having > gone away are reported via -1 and some errno. >
Ah no, that's read(2). write(2) is as you say, so the patch should check for EAGAIN. Paolo
