FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Kernel

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-10-2011, 01:47 PM
Ben Hutchings
 
Default Bug#629994: sendfile returns early without user-visible reason

On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:08 +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
[...]
> Reading standards is notoriously difficult, I admit. The behaviour of read
> is specified to read the requested number of bytes, if possible.
>
> The standard gives an exception list where applications can deviate from
> the behaviour and read less.
[...]

"Implementations may support additional errors not included in this
list, may generate errors included in this list under circumstances
other than those described here, or may contain extensions or
limitations that prevent some errors from occurring."

Please fix your application and give up this argument.

Ben.

--
Ben Hutchings
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism. - Harrison
 
Old 06-10-2011, 01:53 PM
Ben Hutchings
 
Default Bug#629994: sendfile returns early without user-visible reason

On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 14:47 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-10 at 15:08 +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> [...]
> > Reading standards is notoriously difficult, I admit. The behaviour of read
> > is specified to read the requested number of bytes, if possible.
> >
> > The standard gives an exception list where applications can deviate from
> > the behaviour and read less.
> [...]
>
> "Implementations may support additional errors not included in this
> list, may generate errors included in this list under circumstances
> other than those described here, or may contain extensions or
> limitations that prevent some errors from occurring."

This is not directly relevant to truncation of read/write, but I think
it illustrates the general principle that POSIX does not claim to
enumerate all I/O failure conditions (which would be a denial of
reality).

Ben.

> Please fix your application and give up this argument.
>
> Ben.
>

--
Ben Hutchings
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism. - Harrison
 
Old 06-10-2011, 01:58 PM
Jonathan Nieder
 
Default Bug#629994: sendfile returns early without user-visible reason

Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:17:22AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I looked at both. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here ---
>
> Yes, but thats your lack of understanding prose logic, not a valid
> disagreement:

Is insulting people what "agree to disagree" means?

This is my last reply to this bug. (I will be happy to continue to
pursue the manpages-dev bug, though.)

I think you completely misunderstood my intent here. As both you and
I have mentioned, whether you are interpreting POSIX correctly here is
entirely irrelevant. As you mentioned, Unix tradition, user
expectations, and what applications actually do are more important as a
normative force. As I mentioned, the upstream Linux maintainers could
care less about what POSIX says. So why am I bothering to mention
that this part of POSIX, not unusually for a piece of text that
probably used to be a Solaris manpage and was only later massaged into
a standards document, has room for improvement?

Because I would like to see it improved. This seems like an example
of the "platform problem"[1] --- we are not used to having the power
to talk to and help the people that make the software and
documentation we use, so it looks like a rigid thing.

But yeah, if you want to interpret it as me being argumentative and in
denial about a bug instead of paying attention to what I am saying, go
right ahead.

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/443531/



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110610135858.GA3594@elie">http://lists.debian.org/20110610135858.GA3594@elie
 
Old 06-10-2011, 02:22 PM
Marc Lehmann
 
Default Bug#629994: sendfile returns early without user-visible reason

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I looked at both. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree here ---
> >
> > Yes, but thats your lack of understanding prose logic, not a valid
> > disagreement:
>
> Is insulting people what "agree to disagree" means?

I didn't feel insulted, no? Did you because I pointed out the flaw in your
logical thinking?

I don't have a problem with you disagreeing, but you are clearly wrong here,
because you didn't understand the basic meaning of english in that manpage.

However, now that I pointed out this flaw in your logic, you could try to
acknowledge that, that wouldn't diminish your charcter a bit.

I did feel insulted by this bugreport getting closed by people who not
just don't have the slightest understanding of the statements they make,
or the topic, but actually do evil by closing valid bugreports that might
help other users.

Those people have no business vandalising the bugtracker.

> This is my last reply to this bug. (I will be happy to continue to
> pursue the manpages-dev bug, though.)

This is also my last reply to this bug anywhere.

Let me add that the state of the debian bug tracking system has degraded
into glibc-like spheres.

I reported a totally innocuous bug, and was open to explain any details
people might find lacking.

You were the only person who actually tried to understand the
problem. It's not making you any worse that you didn't get the meaning of
"A does B except it may not when...".

However, closing a bug that, as it turned out, causes data corruption by
people who make blatantly wrong statements about unix, something they
*clearly* have no clue of, or even tried out before they make their
statements, is a disgrace.

This is not the first time where a valid bugreport gets closed by debian
(I do read a fair amount of bug reports, and am not refering to my own)
totally contrary to debians own guidelines, by people who have no clue and
didn't even try to understand the bug (and yes, if that wasn't clear, that
clearly excludes you, Jonathan, thank you for NOT being like that).

> care less about what POSIX says. So why am I bothering to mention
> that this part of POSIX, not unusually for a piece of text that
> probably used to be a Solaris manpage and was only later massaged into
> a standards document, has room for improvement?

I don't disagree on that at all. What I disagree is that your
interpretatioon of "A does B except when..." means "A does B except when ...
or under any other circumstance it deems fit".

At leats the read manpage is crystal clear in this respect.

> Because I would like to see it improved. This seems like an example
> of the "platform problem"[1] --- we are not used to having the power
> to talk to and help the people that make the software and
> documentation we use, so it looks like a rigid thing.

What are the chances of getting a fix like that into the manpage when this
bugreport gets closed by somebody who just picks wrogn statements out of
the sky and abuses those to close valid bugreports?

Maybe I am unfair here, because I got a fair amount of bugfixes into the
linux manpages, a few through the debian bts and a lot before I used
it. But still, the debian bts is clearly not the right place to report
bugs anymore. The amount of people who are vandalising this system is
*staggering*.

> But yeah, if you want to interpret it as me being argumentative and in
> denial about a bug instead of paying attention to what I am saying, go
> right ahead.

Please read the other postings in this bug reporting thread.

There clearly *is* denial about this bug, and people here clearly *are*
argumentative. The only person who replied and isn't obviously agrumentative
and in denial is you. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Still, my arguments are about this bug, and the response to it. If you ignore
that others have posted total bullshit here and even closed this bugreport,
then you might have a point. But I don't think thats realistic.

"You" who receive this bugreport, are clearly, as a whole, argumentative
and in denial.

Keep also in mind that somebody who reports a bug here does not know how many
thousands of people reply here or even read this - the assumption is that
when reporting a bug in the debian bts, that then only people who have
something to say about the situation should reply.

This is clearly not the case.

"Unix has always behaved like that" my ass. What are they thinking...

--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ / // / / / schmorp@schmorp.de
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110610142228.GD5307@schmorp.de">http://lists.debian.org/20110610142228.GD5307@schmorp.de
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org