Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:59:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:59:17 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-5-cust12.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.121.12]:58350 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:59:16 -0400 Subject: Re: Weirdness with AF_INET listen() backlog [2.4.18] From: Alan Cox To: Michael Kerrisk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <008a01c237de$29d6b700$0200a8c0@MichaelKerrisk> References: <008a01c237de$29d6b700$0200a8c0@MichaelKerrisk> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 30 Jul 2002 18:18:51 +0100 Message-Id: <1028049531.7974.1.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 928 Lines: 30 On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 16:31, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > If you expect > >the server to say something you'll see the timeout there instead of > >seeing it on the connect. > > Sorry, I don't quite understand this last sentence! Can you elaborate? If your client current does connect if timedout error read if timedout error then it will fail on the read, and since the code should already handle that case will work out fine > >Since a timeout on the data can happen in the real world Im sure your > >code already correctly handles this case ;) > > You mean on a send() or write(), right? If the client writes first then it may well not fail until the read after the write - 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/