This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients Justin.Cappos, bbangert, exarkun, giampaolo.rodola, loewis, ned.deily, nicdumz, pitrou, ronaldoussoren, rosslagerwall, roysmith
Date 2011-01-04.22:29:48
SpamBayes Score 1.73894e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1294180186.3669.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <>
> 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 22:29:52pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, loewis, ronaldoussoren, exarkun, roysmith, giampaolo.rodola, ned.deily, nicdumz, bbangert, Justin.Cappos, rosslagerwall
2011-01-04 22:29:49pitroulinkissue7995 messages
2011-01-04 22:29:48pitroucreate