Subject: Re: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug?
From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: Buddy Lucas <buddy.lucas@gmail.com>
Cc: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@suse.de>, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>,
       "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <5d6b65750410170840c80c314@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20041016062512.GA17971@mark.mielke.cc>
	 <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKMEONPAAA.davids@webmaster.com>
	 <20041017133537.GL7468@marowsky-bree.de>
	 <5d6b657504101707175aab0fcb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20041017150509.GC10280@mark.mielke.cc>
	 <5d6b65750410170840c80c314@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1098029617.2148.56.camel@krustophenia.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 12:13:38 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 869
Lines: 23

On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 11:40, Buddy Lucas wrote:
> > poorly wirtten. For blocking sockets, it makes select() useless as a
> > reliable mechanism for determining whether or not the recvmsg() will
> > block. I say useless, because I don't know why any professional
> 
> That use of select() *is* useless, there's no doubt about that. It is
> an application problem though.
> 

At this point it's a documentation problem.  It's clear that the
behavior is by design and is not changing.  It's also clear that this is
not the expected behavior for some people.  Can't we just note this in
CAVEATS or something and move on?

Lee


-
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/