In article <1esox5k.1h41eyq110nufuM@[10.0.12.137]> you write:
>The question now is that should we fix the async I/O semantic of the old
>implementation, or should we rely on the new implementation? If we
>choose the latter, then we must throw away the old implementation
>completely, because having broken semantic on async signals is bad, but
>having two different semantics is even worst.

Since the behaviour of the old pipes will presumably also apply to
Unix-domain sockets, they'll need fixing (or proving correct) anyway, won't
they?

-- 
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>