Message125373
> I think this patch (nonblock2.patch) is wrong. If I have a
> non-blocking server socket on *BSD, and do accept, with no default
> timeout: IIUC, under the patch, I will get a blocking connection
> socket. However, according to the operating system API, I'm entitled
> to get a non-blocking socket (i.e. O_NONBLOCK must be inherited across
> accept).
Well, either the defaulttimeout should have the priority over the parent
socket's settings (your argument in msg125135), or it shouldn't. I'm
fine with both, but I think any more complicated combination would end
up puzzling for the user :) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2011-01-04 22:29:52 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, loewis, ronaldoussoren, exarkun, roysmith, giampaolo.rodola, ned.deily, nicdumz, bbangert, Justin.Cappos, rosslagerwall |
2011-01-04 22:29:49 | pitrou | link | issue7995 messages |
2011-01-04 22:29:48 | pitrou | create | |
|