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 2011-01-04.22:31:45
SpamBayes Score 1.18834e-08
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1294180302.3669.25.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <1294180186.3669.23.camel@localhost.localdomain>
> Antoine Pitrou <> added the comment:
> > 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 :)

I would add that, since flags inheritance through accept() is
platform-dependent while the default timeout is a well-defined Python
feature, I would lean slightly towards applying the default timeout.
Date User Action Args
2011-01-04 22:31:46pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, loewis, ronaldoussoren, exarkun, roysmith, giampaolo.rodola, ned.deily, nicdumz, bbangert, Justin.Cappos, rosslagerwall
2011-01-04 22:31:45pitroulinkissue7995 messages
2011-01-04 22:31:45pitroucreate