Email List: Xaustin-group-lX
[All Lists]

Re: XCU XSH #238 (fputc) proposed resolution

To: gwc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XCU XSH #238 (fputc) proposed resolution
From: Don Cragun <don.cragun@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 12:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Geoff,
        I agree with most of what you suggest below and will send a
replacement with corrections in a few days.  Please find comments
in-line below.
        
        Thanks,
        Don

>Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 16:13:33 +0100
>From: Geoff Clare <gwc@opengroup.org>
>X-Mailing-List: austin-group-l:archive/latest/11457
>
>Don Cragun <don.cragun@Sun.COM> wrote, on 29 May 2008:
>>
 ... ... ...
>>  1. Add a new paragraph after P582, L20983:
>
>Line number should be 20093.

Fixed.

 ... ... ...
>>  2. Change the wording on P583, L20120-21023 from:
>>      The following condition may be detected synchronously or
>>      asynchronously:
>>      [EFBIG] The file is a regular file, aiobcp->aio_nbytes is
>>              greater than 0, and the starting offset in
>>              aiobcp->aio_offset is at or beyond the offset maximum
>>              in the open file description associated with
>>              aiocbp->aio_fildes.
>>     in the aio_write ERRORS section to:
>>      The following conditions may be detected synchronously or
>>      asynchronously:
>>              [EFBIG] The file is a regular file, aiobcp->aio_nbytes
>>                      is greater than 0, and the starting position is
>>                      greater than or equal to the offset maximum in
>>                      the open file description associated with
>>                      aiocbp->aio_fildes.
>>        XSI   [EFBIG] The file is a regular file, aiobcp->aio_nbytes
>>        XSI           is greater than 0, and there is no room for any
>>        XSI           bytes to be written at the starting position
>>        XSI           without exceeding the file size limit for the
>>        XSI           process.  A SIGXFSZ signal shall also be sent to
>>        XSI           the thread.
>>     with shading as indicated by the margin markings.
>
>I think if these two EFBIG cases are explicitly allowed to be detected
>synchronously, then the other case (exceeding max file size) should
>be included here as well:
>
>               [EFBIG] The file is a regular file, aiobcp->aio_nbytes
>                       is greater than 0, and there is no room for any
>                       bytes to be written at the starting position
>                       without exceeding the implementation-defined
>                       maximum file size.

No.  This case is already handled on the aio_read() and aio_write()
ERRORS sections with synchronous or asynchronous detection.

>
>>  1. Add to end of P805, L26824 (2nd fclose() EFBIG error):
>>      A SIGXFSZ signal shall also be sent to the thread.
>>     with XSI shading.
>
>Interesting numbering convention :-)

Fixed.  ;-{

 ... ... ...
>>  8. Change:
>>      "In addition to the errors returned by the lio_listio()
>>      function,"
>>     on P1222, L40349 to:
>>      "In addition to the errors returned by the aio_read() and
>>      aio_write() functions,"
>>     in the lio_listio() ERRORS section.
>
>I think I can see what you're trying to do here, but this change
>doesn't work.  In order for the new text to make sense there would
>need to be an earlier reference to errors returned by aio_read()
>and aio_write().  One could be added, but I think it would be
>simpler just to delete the text "In addition to the errors returned
>by the lio_listio() function".  Alternatively, I think the other
>lio_listio() changes are sufficient without making any change here.

I'll delete the first clause.

>
>>  9. Change:
>>      "The error codes that can be set are the same as would be set
>>      by a read() or write() function,"
>>     on P1222, L40355-40356 to:
>>      "The error codes that can be set are the same as would be set
>>      by an aio_read() or aio_write() function,"
>>     in the lio_listio() ERRORS section.
>
>This is a little misleading; I think it should say:
>
>       "The error codes that can be set are the same as would be set
>       if the I/O operation had been initiated by an aio_read() or
>       aio_write() function,"

Fixed.

 ... ... ...
>> 
>> 11. Delete the EOVERFLOW error condition on P1223, L40365-40368 in the
>>     lio_listio() ERRORS section.  (This is covered by the EOVERFLOW
>>     error in the aio_read() ERRORS section.)
>
>The ECANCELED error (L40358) is also covered by the new reference to
>aio_read/aio_write and can be deleted.

Fixed.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>