Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:29:59 -0700 | From | "David S. Miller" <> | Subject | Re: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug? |
| |
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 02:19:37 +0200 Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:35:21PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 22:06:08 +0200 > > Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 12:43:27PM -0700, Hua Zhong wrote: > > > > How hard is it to treat the next read to the fd as NON_BLOCKING, even if > > > > it's not set? > > > > > > Programs don't expect EAGAIN from blocking sockets. > > > > That's right, which is why we block instead. > > Programs don't expect a read to block after a positive select either, > so it doesn't really help.
It absolutely does help the programs not using select(), using blocking sockets, and not expecting -EAGAIN. - 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/
| |