X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <44A3F2CF.3040503@netbauds.net> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:33:35 +0100 From: Darryl Miles User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-GB; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060614 SeaMonkey/1.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Proposal: select(2) writability notifcation vs write operations on pipes References: <44A348D1 DOT 6070908 AT netbauds DOT net> <44A3F101 DOT 2070400 AT netbauds DOT net> In-Reply-To: <44A3F101.2070400@netbauds.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Darryl Miles wrote: > * That all writing to WIN32 NamedPipes is done non-blocking version of > WriteFileEx() call. If the response back from the WIN32 kernel is that > it can't take the data yet (would have blocked) then the following plan > jumps into action: Opps, I should have added that the plan jumps into action only if the POSIX side (we are emulating) has the fd set in blocking mode. If its in non-blocking mode we would return -1 EAGAIN from the write() call. Darryl -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/