Re: Non-blocking sockets, connect(), and socket states

On Iau, 2005-04-28 at 11:34, Bernard Blackham wrote:
> Should it be the kernel's responsibility to set SS_CONNECTED when
> the connection is established? Or should I go file bugs and submit
> patches on all the applications that use non-blocking sockets and
> don't call connect() a second time?

See posix 1003.1g drafts. I believe from the state diagram there that
you should call connect() again once it completes.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • Non-blocking sockets, connect(), and socket states
    • From: Bernard Blackham <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: HyperThreading, kernel 2.6.10, 1 logical CPU idle !!
• Next by Date: [RFC: 2.6 patch] drivers/pci/pci.c: remove pci_dac_set_dma_mask
• Previous by thread: Non-blocking sockets, connect(), and socket states
• Next by thread: [x86_64] how worried should I be about MCEs?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]