Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:26:26 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: read() returns errno == 1 ("Resource temporarily unavailable")
Message-ID:	<20010127112626.A31394@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<u67snmf5x29 DOT fsf AT rachel DOT hq DOT vtech> <20010119120952 DOT A7227 AT redhat DOT com> <u67vgrb4bod DOT fsf AT rachel DOT hq DOT vtech> <20010119143246 DOT F7746 AT redhat DOT com> <u67wvbhnetl DOT fsf AT rachel DOT hq DOT vtech>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<u67wvbhnetl.fsf@rachel.hq.vtech>; from jojo@virtutech.se on Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 05:24:22PM +0100

On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 05:24:22PM +0100, Jesper Eskilson wrote:
>Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 07:52:18PM +0100, Jesper Eskilson wrote:
>> >Christopher Faylor <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> writes:
>> >
>> >> errno == 1 is not EAGAIN.  I assume that you mean errno == 11.
>> >
>> >Of course. My fingers slipped.
>> >
>> >> Looking at the code for _read, the only time this should be returned is if
>> >> you are using a non-blocking read.
>> >
>> >I'm fairly certain that I'm not.
>> 
>> Well, since I'm fairly certain that the code is pretty clear and since I
>> don't recall anyone else reporting this you're either going to have to
>> debug this yourself or provide a very simple test case.
>
>I finally gained some wisdom regarding this. The problem was caused when
>accessing a file on a filesystem mounted in text-mode (the file-system was
>accesses as //<driveletter>/<path>). By explicitly opening the file with
>the O_BINARY flag, the problem went away. I thought I read the section on
>text vs. binary files in the manual, but apparently I missed the section on
>what happens with "//<driveletter>/".
>
>Now, as I don't like leaving bugs behind without fully understanding why
>they disappeared, the natural question is: Since the file-descriptor was
>not in non-blocking mode, why did read() return EAGAIN not an EOF?

"...  you're either going to have to debug this yourself or provide a
very simple test case."

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -