From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] tar.c, should use readn() instead of read(). From: "Russ Cox" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:09:11 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: daaed622-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > I'm not quite sure of the motivation between the difference. It > seems a bit silly to me since its just buffering and doesn't have > anything to do with semantics. Writing-to/reading-from raw tape > drives (and newer media) does have size restrictions so I understand > the feeling out of the read size. However, I'm not sure why > the stdin/out should be limited to such a small buffer size, perhaps > a throwback to limitations long gone. Of course, on every other system, not specifying an f option gets you /dev/tape rather than stdin/stdout, which just makes it even weirder. Russ