Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Petr Vandrovec" <> | Date | Wed, 4 Jun 2003 14:19:34 +0200 | Subject | Re: select for UNIX sockets? |
| |
On 4 Jun 03 at 6:55, Jesse Pollard wrote: > On Monday 02 June 2003 19:08, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Should something like this work correctly? > > > > while(1) { > > FD_ZERO(&set); > > FD_SET(fd, &set); > > select(FD_SETSIZE, NULL, &set, NULL, NULL); <<<<<<< for writing > > > > if (FD_ISSET(fd, &set)) > > sendto(fd, &datagram, 1, 0, ...); > > } > > > > fd is a normal local datagram socket. It looks select() returns with > > "fd ready for write" and sendto() then blocks as the queue is full. > > > > I don't know if it's expected behaviour or just a not yet known bug. > > Of course, I have a more complete test program if needed. > > > > 2.4.21rc6, haven't tried any other version. > > > > strace shows: > > > > select(1024, NULL, [3], NULL, NULL) = 1 (out [3]) > > sendto(3, "\0", 1, 0, {sa_family=AF_UNIX, path="/tmp/tempUn"}, 13 <<< > > blocks > > Could. There may be room for the buffer, but unless it is set to nonblock, > you may have a stream open to another host that may not accept the data (busy, > network congestion...) With the required acks, the return may (should?) be > delayed until the ack arrives.
Besides that select() on unconnected socket is nonsense... If you'll change code to do connect(), select(), send(), then it should work, unless I missed something. Petr Vandrovec vandrove@vc.cvut.cz
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |