* David G. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040103 00:55] wrote: > > * David G. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040102 21:41] wrote: > > > > > > sendfile(8) tries to maintain compatibility with sosend as much as is > > > reasonable. ENOTCONN is the appropriate error to return if the socket > > > isn't connected. sosend checks SS_CANTSENDMORE prior to the check for > > > SS_ISCONNECTED, however, and returns EPIPE in that case. Perhaps sendfile > > > should be changed to do the same (just a though - I'm not proposing > > > that this be done). > > > Removing the check entirely seems clearly wrong, however. > > > > I had forgotten that sendfile bypasses sosend(9). I could > > add the check, is there a reason not to? The one reason I > > figured was that sometimes blocking sigpipe can be hairy inside > > libraries. Now that we can selectively disable SIGPIPE using > > the setsockopt using Apple's code this is less of an issue. > > Yes, I think checking for SS_CATSENDMORE (and returning EPIPE) prior to > checking SS_ISCONNECTED (and returning ENOTCONN as it does now) is the right > thing to do.
Last question (I hope)... :) Why not call sosend? -- - Alfred Perlstein - Research Engineering Development Inc. - email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 408-480-4684 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
