From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Charles Forsyth Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:12:22 +0100 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045f26880821fd054f9252e8" Cc: 9front@9front.org Subject: Re: [9fans] Blocking on write Topicbox-Message-UUID: bd8617c2-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --f403045f26880821fd054f9252e8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On 15 May 2017 at 16:46, Giacomo Tesio wrote: > Shouldn't the waserror code check that the queue has been actually closed? Either that or check errstr against Ehungup, since that's the exact error it incurred. The latter has the advantage of not obscuring a different error if the pipe is closed between the write and waserror, but with pipes there's not much except interrupt, I suppose, so it seems a minor race and perhaps the qclosed check is adequate. --f403045f26880821fd054f9252e8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On 15 May 2017 at 16:46, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it> wro= te:
Shouldn't the waserror code check= that the queue has been actually closed?

Either that= or check errstr against Ehungup, since that's the exact error it incur= red.
The latter has the advantage of not ob= scuring a different error if the pipe is closed
between the write and waserror, but with pipes there's not much ex= cept interrupt, I suppose,
so it seems a mi= nor race and perhaps the qclosed check is adequate.
--f403045f26880821fd054f9252e8--