Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!botter!star.cs.vu.nl!maart
From: maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: fcntl() versus ioctl() - yes!
Keywords: FNDELAY
Message-ID: <1407@solo12.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 16 Sep 88 05:49:47 GMT
References: <1380@solo7.cs.vu.nl> <7034@ki4pv.uucp>
Reply-To: maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 24

In article <7034@ki4pv.uucp> tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews) writes:
\In article <1380@solo7.cs.vu.nl>, maart@cs.vu.nl (Maarten Litmaath) writes:
\) Isn't it a dubious feature that the PARENT should suffer if a CHILD
\) decides) to set the FNDELAY flag of stdin? It's an FCNTL() we're
\) talking about, not an IOCTL()!
\
\Well, this is a good question.  Let's examine it.  First of all, note
\that fcntl(2) operates on file descriptors (just like ioctl(2) does).
\In many environments, it even offers several of the same sorts of
\controls.  I don't see any moral difference between fcntl(2) and
\ioctl(2), myself.

Aha! And where's the expected next statement: why has fcntl() been invented
in the first place?

\Now, consider the effect proposed by maart@cs.vu.nl above: that the
\parent's fd should not be affected by a child's action.

That's NOT what I said! My point was: let fcntl() handle the local (i.e.
per-process) effects, and leave the global effects to ioctl().
(Special attention to my .signature, please.)
-- 
    Alles klar,                       |Maarten Litmaath @ Free U Amsterdam:
                   Herr Kommissar?    |maart@cs.vu.nl, mcvax!botter!maart