Re: What should aio_fsync (O_SYNC, NULL) do?

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

>>>>> Mark Brown writes:

Mark> At 3:45 PM +0200 7/26/00, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Uli,
>> 
>> I'm enhancing rt/tst-aio.c to test also aio_fsync.  My Posix Standard
>> mentions (1003.1, 1996 Edition) on page 181 for aio_fsync:
>> "If aiocb is NULL, then no status is returned..."
>> 
>> Currently aio_fsync (O_SYNC, NULL) gives a segmentation fault.  The
>> current Austin Draft does not mention NULL anymore.  Shall I add the
>> test for NULL or not?

Mark> Andreas,

Mark> Under the rules that will govern the AG book, you may continue to handle
Mark> NULL as specified in the 1003.1-1996 book -- which I personally
Something which I also don't understand is the semantics of a NULL.
The 1003.1-1996 standard only allows NULL but didn't say what's
happening.
Mark> prefer to a core dump :) All that the omission (if intentional)
Mark> means is that implementations can handle NULL as they see fit.
Are you sure?  Normally NULL is not a valid parameter - but
1003.1-1996 mentions it as valid parameter.

Mark> I will try to find out if this is intentional.
Thanks,
Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de