Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!alice!andrew
From: andrew@alice.UUCP (Andrew Hume)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Sys V fork IS broken!
Summary: warning: philosophy at hand
Message-ID: <11107@alice.UUCP>
Date: 31 Jul 90 04:39:51 GMT
References: <480@amanue.UUCP> <13426@cbmvax.commodore.com> <573@oglvee.UUCP> <1990Jul28.195032.18746@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 17



	when talking about (hardware) network interfaces, dave presotto
points out that what you raelly want is one of 3 answers:
	yes it worked.
	no, it didn't but if would be worthwhile trying again.
	no, it didn't.
(an example of the middle category might be a packet collision on an ethernet.)

	tim bray seems to be of the school that wants one of two answers:
yes, it worked, or no, it didn't (and its serious!).

	as with so many of these questions, if you don't like the interface
that comes with the system call, put a wrapper around it. i guess i am agreeing
with those who have suggested this be done in user space; i don't
see how it can be done in kernel space without denying the facility for user
programs to react to EAGAIN in their own way (perhaps, asking for confirmation before sleeping).