Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> I think this change should be installed regardless, as it fixes an
> oversight.  However, I think it needs to be augmented, because the
> fact that FILE_CONNECT flag is set doesn't necessarily mean the
> connection is in progress: it could have failed already.  We need to
> look at the status as well.
>
> The possible states of the FILE_CONNECT flag and the cp->status values
> are:
>
>   flag    status                      description
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   ON      STATUS_READ_READY           reader thread is about to try connect
>   ON      STATUS_READ_FAILED          reader thread waits in _sys_wait_connect
>   ON      STATUS_READ_SUCCEEDED       reader thread successfully connected
>   ON      STATUS_CONNECT_FAILED       reader thread failed to connect
>   OFF     STATUS_READ_ACKNOWLEDGED    sys_select acknowledged successful connect
>   OFF     STATUS_READ_READY           reader thread is about to read
>   OFF     STATUS_READ_IN_PROGRESS     reader thread waits in _sys_read_ahead
>   OFF     STATUS_READ_SUCCEEDED       reader thread succeeded in reading
>   OFF     STATUS_READ_FAILED          reader thread failed to read
>
> So we should only return EWOULDBLOCK when FILE_CONNECT is set _and_
> the status is not STATUS_CONNECT_FAILED.  If FILE_CONNECT is set, but
> the status is STATUS_CONNECT_FAILED, we should instead return the
> value computed from cp->errcode (if it is non-zero).  There's an
> example of that in sys_read.

Thank you very much for these inputs.  I rearranged the patch to include
these two cases and removed another special case that should no longer
be needed as it is covered by the first one.

Is this what you had in mind?  Do you agree with the change?

Thanks.