.
Last update: 1997-05-20
9945-1-amd1-93 #01
Defect Report Number: (to be assigned by WG15)
Topic: async IO
Relevant Sections: 6.7.4.2
Classification: See responses below.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Date Received: Wed, 13 Jul 1994 00:51:22 GMT
From: [email protected] (Jeffrey Heller)
Contact info: [email protected] (415) 390-4796
Defect Report:
-----------------------
I have a couple of question on the async IO section of POSIX
1003.b1-1993. Reading section 6.7.4.2 (the description of the
lio_listio call) I am not clear on:
1) does the sigev_notify field need to be filled in the sig
argument to lio_listio. The generic section on the aiocb
(6.7.1.1) talks about the use of the sigev_notify field,
however the section on lio_listio described different
requirements using the same structure.
1b) If not can it be filled in, and what is the behavior if
for example the sigev_filed was set to SIGEV_NONE and the
sigev_signo is non zero.
2) If a user puts valid values in the sigev_notify and
sigev_signo fields in members of the aiocb list in a call to
lio_listio() what happens? Are they ignored, do that happen as
well as/instead of the event that is described by *sig argument.
WG15 response for 9945-1-amd1-1993
------------------------------------
1. The standard is clear that SIGEV_NOTIFY is ignored and a signal shall be
sent. Conforming implementations must conform to this. This is different
from the definition in section 3.3.1.2 and which the interpretation committee
views as a defect in the standard. This fact is being refered to the
sponsor for consideration. The interpretation committee suggests that
applications might wish to consistently set SIGEV_NOFTIFY and SIGEV_SIGNO
so that the application would continue to work correctly if the standard
is changed.
2. The standard is clear that in the case raised, that a signal is generated at
the completion of each i/o operation where sigev_signo is non-zero and one is
also generated when the entire set of operations is completed. Conforming
implementations must conform to this.
Rationale
----------
None.
Response date: 8/30/94
_____________________________________________________________________________