Re: I/O Watchdog Daemon

Is it possible that the I/O errors cause the open to fail? If so, you should not use next as you will then not catch the EIO condition.

CountZero

A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James

My blog: Imperial Deltronics

Comment on Re: I/O Watchdog Daemon Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: I/O Watchdog Daemon by IdleResonance (Acolyte) on Aug 22, 2012 at 16:26 UTC
I asked that very question under the "Specific Concerns" section and haven't seen an answer yet. open(2) does not have any I/O error conditions to check against. As I said, this is a rough draft and I'd appreciate any insight as to that logic.	[reply]
Re^3: I/O Watchdog Daemon by CountZero (Bishop) on Aug 22, 2012 at 17:17 UTC
So, unless you are certain `open` cannot fail on an EIO, don't test if the open succeeded and directly go to the sysread and catch your EIO there. CountZero A program should be light and agile, its subroutines connected like a string of pearls. The spirit and intent of the program should be retained throughout. There should be neither too little or too much, neither needless loops nor useless variables, neither lack of structure nor overwhelming rigidity." - The Tao of Programming, 4.1 - Geoffrey James My blog: Imperial Deltronics	[reply] [d/l]