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]