On Mar 27, 2005, at 12:48 AM, Jonathan Stone wrote:

> My quick reading of the SUSve spec for send(2) is that it talks only
> about what happens between userspace and the socket layer. What
> happens below that is up to the protocol.  Which leads us to:

SUSv3 also makes the same distinction between EAGAIN and ENOBUFS.   
EAGAIN is required only of the operation would have blocked.  Seems  
like we're in a situation where the places that can return ENOBUFS  
were never intended to be blocking points, so the return value is  
perfectly legal according to the standard.

I'm not even sure my suggestion of translation ENOBUFS -> 0 is  
actually necessary now.

-- thorpej