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

Re: XCU XSH #238 (fputc) proposed resolution

To: austin-group-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XCU XSH #238 (fputc) proposed resolution
From: Geoff Clare <gwc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:05:45 +0100
References: <200806031948.m53JmefU006061@spartan.eng.sun.com>
Don Cragun <don.cragun@Sun.COM> wrote, on 03 Jun 2008:
>
>  ... ... ...
> >>  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.

The above change is _in_ the aio_write() ERRORS section.  In D5.1 the
only EFBIG error there is the one related to the offset maximum.
Your change adds the one related to the file size limit.  I am
suggesting adding the one related to the maximum file size as well.

I can't see any reason to have only two of the three EFBIG cases
listed there rather than all three.

-- 
Geoff Clare <g.clare@opengroup.org>
The Open Group, Thames Tower, Station Road, Reading, RG1 1LX, England

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