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: <20040106145918.O28128@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20040106122410.J28128@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <8f6657583122def2e626fafc1f27a07b@plan9.bell-labs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <8f6657583122def2e626fafc1f27a07b@plan9.bell-labs.com>; from David Presotto on Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:42:35AM -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 14:59:19 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: b2f2db7c-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 07:42:35AM -0500, David Presotto wrote: > > EWOULDBLOCK would be moderately hard to do since you need that > info from the kernel and it doesn't give it to you. The best you > could do is chedk q lengths with a stat and maybe approximate it. > Yes, I think I'm going to bypass that one. I'll see where it is relevant, and eliminate all instances of it. Without embarrassing myself, I can point out that it is used in a module providing I/O via Unix sockets, which is really not a Plan 9 favourite :-) > ECONNRESET you probably could do by looking at the err file in > the connection directory. The entire I/O module will probably be streamlined to use exclusively Plan 9 facilities. I think a whole lot of problems will go away as a result. I was hoping to avoid this, but I'm not sure why one should, Plan 9 is just superior, why battle with old fashioned operations if one does not have to? ++L