Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2004 17:29:59 -0700
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
To: Olivier Galibert <galibert@pobox.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug?
Message-Id: <20041006172959.47c25e3d.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20041007001937.GA48516@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
References: <20041006193053.GC4523@pclin040.win.tue.nl>
	<003301c4abdc$c043f350$b83147ab@amer.cisco.com>
	<20041006200608.GA29180@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
	<20041006163521.2ae12e6d.davem@davemloft.net>
	<20041007001937.GA48516@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 983
Lines: 25

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/