Not sure where to ask this question because I mostly never program on Linux, so: where do the errno's go when you issue ops on an io_uring? To the naive user (me), it looks like they simple vanish, since cqe.res is documented as being simply "-1 on error". This can't be right?
Linux APIs have had many equivalent bad decisions as this, so I do not assume that the way that I think something should work is the way that it works.
-
-
I would love to live in a world where the way I expect something to work was the way it worked, and I could just assume the manual is wrong if it's not that :) But that is not the world I find myself in 99% of the time.
-
Let's not keep calling it wrong, because imho it is not. It could be clearer, but it's definitely not saying that cqe->res == -1 for any error and errno being where to look.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
That's fair, and as I said, if it's not clear then it should be improved. That said, I haven't had anyone interpret it like this before. If so, it would've been changed already.
-
what it literally says is that the return value matches the return value documented on a man page that says the return value is -1
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.