Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261611AbVEANrn (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2005 09:47:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261618AbVEANrn (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2005 09:47:43 -0400 Received: from clock-tower.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:21219 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261611AbVEANrj (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2005 09:47:39 -0400 Subject: Re: Non-blocking sockets, connect(), and socket states From: Alan Cox To: Bernard Blackham Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Werner Almesberger In-Reply-To: <20050428103451.GG4798@blackham.com.au> References: <20050428103451.GG4798@blackham.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1114955160.11309.160.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 14:46:04 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 664 Lines: 15 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 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/