Hi!
On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:31:09 +0100, "Neal H. Walfield"
wrote:
> If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending
> acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a
> socket), connect fails with EWOULDBLOCK. [...]
This patch has been used in Debian GNU/Hur
This has received through testing in the Debian package. I've now
committed it to ams-branch.
> pflocal/
>
> 2005-05-17 Neal H. Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * connq.h (struct connq_request): Remove forward.
> (connq_listen): Wait for a request to be queued not until there is
>
On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 10:31:09AM +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> 2005-05-17 Neal H. Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am happy to say that this patch fixes the hang when GNOME is compiled
against the gamin file alteration monitor. GNOME starts up fine now
(though the updating doesn't seem to wo
> If listen has been called, then connections should complete, local
> ones should complete instantly.
Not when the queue limit has already been reached, right?
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending
>> acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a
>> socket), connect fails with EWOULDBLOCK.
>
> This is doubly wrong. When listen has been called and the queue lim
"Neal H. Walfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand. The connection is "actually" made when you call
> connect. POSIX says[1]:
>
> If the initiating socket is connection-mode, then connect() shall
> attempt to establish a connection to the address specified by the
> address
At Tue, 17 May 2005 19:05:52 -0700,
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> "Neal H. Walfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending
> > acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a
> > socket), connect fails with EWOULDBL
At Tue, 17 May 2005 22:03:13 -0700 (PDT),
Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending
> > acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a
> > socket), connect fails with EWOULDBLOCK.
>
> This is doubly wrong. When listen has be
> If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending
> acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a
> socket), connect fails with EWOULDBLOCK.
This is doubly wrong. When listen has been called and the queue limit not
reached, then the connection should be esta
"Neal H. Walfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending
> acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a
> socket), connect fails with EWOULDBLOCK. It is unclear to me if this
> behavior is POSIX-conforming or not [1],
If a program calls connect on a non-blocking socket with no pending
acceptors (i.e. threads calling accept on the listening end of a
socket), connect fails with EWOULDBLOCK. It is unclear to me if this
behavior is POSIX-conforming or not [1], however, (1) there are programs
which do not expect thi
11 matches
Mail list logo
