Message-ID: <45DA1863.1000103@unternet.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:36:35 +0100
From: Frank de Lange <bluez-f@unternet.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: BlueZ development <bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
References: <45D4FB7F.6090301@unternet.org>	<1171591223.7583.33.camel@aeonflux.holtmann.net>	<45DA01EC.4050007@unternet.org>	<1171917193.26567.51.camel@violet>
	<45DA144F.1090506@unternet.org>
In-Reply-To: <45DA144F.1090506@unternet.org>
Subject: Re: [Bluez-devel] sdpd in polling loop on disconnect
Reply-To: BlueZ development <bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: bluez-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: bluez-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net

Frank de Lange wrote:
> Marcel Holtmann wrote:
>>> Attached: patch for sdpd (adds G_IO_HUP|G_IO_ERR to watched conditions 
>>> on g_io_channels)
>> thanks for the patch, but that should be already fixed in the CVS. Johan
>> found this during the UPF testing last week.
> 
> Even better. Did he also check the other watchers for similar problems? 
> As said there are several of them which only look for G_IO_IN events.
> 
> Cheers//Frank
> 

Replying to my own message here... I checked current CVS for the above 
and found a few remaining occurrences of listening watchers which don't 
care for HUP:

utils/daemon/echo.c:176
utils/hcid/main.c:782
utils/input/server.c:233
utils/test/hciemu.c:1331
utils/transfer/server.c:108

Are these accounted for as being 'safe'?

Cheers//Frank

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Bluez-devel mailing list
Bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bluez-devel