From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] /sys/include/ape/errno.h Message-ID: <20040106131953.M28128@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20040106124711.K28128@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <2efee00d4ca87b43665e62488318657b@terzarima.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <2efee00d4ca87b43665e62488318657b@terzarima.net>; from Charles Forsyth on Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:56:07AM +0000 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:19:53 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: b2c7714e-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:56:07AM +0000, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > >>Hm, in other words, I may as well start working on porting the > >>socket code I am working on to Plan 9, rather than make adjustments > >>for the missing error codes (EWOULDBLOCK and ECONNRESET). > > i didn't comment on the missing codes because i don't know > enough about them. (for instance, i thought EWOULDBLOCK had been replaced > by EAGAIN in a standard.) i interact with socket code as little as i can! Hm, making me think about it, if Plan 9 APE does not include such conditions in its socket code, the code that deals with them can just be removed. I suppose the consequences may be dire, but at least I have something to start from. ++L