DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to
	:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s=
	default; b=clPmhokABHYdV6r2FEPMzoSawQ+OWKWxurxmoXFNlKaCt4zwhDrZ7
	YgXpQFg2IbC7RsjfQOrbestoPo/rJbo9kENhurb4cMzxIK6hP6KmYdQBSi+hoDP4
	Ggjn9YXUgTaX5g6G/dCNHaW9WO1gfqBhNdTVAlDFn3IXpupZf+HRKQ=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:09:53 +0100
From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Cc: Lasse Collin <lasse.collin@tukaani.org>
Subject: Re: Clearing O_NONBLOCK from a pipe may lose data
Message-ID: <20150224110953.GF437@calimero.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com,	Lasse Collin <lasse.collin@tukaani.org>
References: <20150222220747.789401d2@tukaani.org> <20150223105653.GG437@calimero.vinschen.de> <20150223122345.GM437@calimero.vinschen.de> <54EC2566.4030703@towo.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OJWLbGElk4npXSe3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54EC2566.4030703@towo.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

--OJWLbGElk4npXSe3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Feb 24 08:16, Thomas Wolff wrote:
> Lasse Collin had written.
> >... the possibility of EINTR is mentioned for specific commands and F_SE=
TFL isn't among them.
> A subtle and maybe minor but valid objection.
>=20
> Am 23.02.2015 um 13:23 schrieb Corinna Vinschen:
> >On Feb 23 11:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>On Feb 22 22:07, Lasse Collin wrote:
> >>>Alternative idea: Would there be a significant downside if Cygwin
> >>>remembered if non-blocking mode was enabled at some point and close()
> >>>would use that flag instead of the current (non)blocking status to
> >>>determine if the background thread hack should be used?
> >>No, that should be doable with very minor effort.
> >That's still an option, of course.
> I think that sounds like a solution.

I applied a matching patch for this:

https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-cvs/2015-q1/msg00079.html

Please give it a try.  If you're not set up to build your own Cygwin
DLL, I will generate a new developer snapshot soon, probably today or
tomorrow.

Btw., did you have a chance to test the pthread_join change from
https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-02/msg00710.html in the meantime?


Thanks,
Corinna

--=20
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--OJWLbGElk4npXSe3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU7FwBAAoJEPU2Bp2uRE+gPt4P+gIJIdEdPEKgXjfLzXYy2+E6
i0xF8hpsVk2Y0W70c0oIVHJh/vdePdbLTo1E6aWAqCnQKdocv52bqmmNFM7FW6Ca
9EYiq327j8rZWT6LB5BWHZ0+shRu3Xv9Bf5lN+2MTPgZp8PutVZYV9ToFqsyvIe+
OkocS5MLw2VhJJziHvcZeecimaA0EZ4z/FRwSc+usimpX5VHMgVnsdYKQYOUl4hF
o/S9AvNecBez7nUWIvsSyoSourUikoCfzzpKaRi0ZreYSDsbLFx2cmQEfq9n4QDs
wWI4NaHRTRId4haiHlVJO8tvxQhP8XOhSJosgU2eSfe7MO4RDOFx3enwFr6EPaCT
LhykdqB7hVMHhCbVyv4j5OLNJdRklbyASV5WPKAdimAR4EfpKtUdGPYE8kFReD6I
yZauUT103c0kAWCNJtAqfRCbFu+8x0I0EusgYU3OnHgj7qt+H32Hfteo3aif55O6
bR9TW+3k14dbl2pVEGmseHlOTwb3UN0o/VEfADdbWKVyb6EA8x6R3JO3Ve6rJA75
APGRYapF6n9DWvrFottNu1dNO9V+TuYZXEQvIoYgN9HDwgeiZX7Xxa/Yh0jazbB1
5bVtUdTdCqa5u3OeYnfn3qAIddOAA/C/S1Ok33KvAhIWb0OdrKD2YyLGgx5bMU7W
1Ur5fNzG4IznaenGF6nG
=Fza3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--OJWLbGElk4npXSe3--