From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lj1-f196.google.com (mail-lj1-f196.google.com
 [209.85.208.196])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAFD246971A
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Wed,  4 Dec 2019 14:26:01 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lj1-f196.google.com with SMTP id k8so7653623ljh.5
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Wed, 04 Dec 2019 03:26:01 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 14:25:58 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20191204112558.GL10140@uranus>
References: <20191204111749.22115-1-gorcunov@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191204111749.22115-1-gorcunov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2] fio/coio: Handle partial writes
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>

On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 02:17:49PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
...
> +static inline int
> +write_should_retry(void)
> +{
> +	/* Retry on O_NONBLOCK */
> +	if (errno == EAGAIN)
> +		return true;
> +	/* Retry if been interrupted */
> +	if (errno == EINTR)
> +		return true;
> +	/* Unexpected error */
> +	return false;
> +}

Guys, I just thought, previously if the file we're writting to
has been opened with o_nonblock and eagain happened we were
returning an error. With this patch we gonna retry write operation,
and this changes behaviour. Maybe I should consider EINTR only?