> David Schwartz wrote: > > Nope. An errored connection is always ready for read/write -- there is > > nothing to wait for as far as the kernel is concerned. Your code keeps > > asking the kernel if something interesting has happened, the > > kernel keeps > > telling it yes, and it refuses to do anything about it.
> The select() returns because i pulled the USB cable from hub. Seems > reasonable. Good. Then there is nothing further to discuss. > The next select() found what? to be interesting in order to prematurely > terminate the select-wait? As far as I can tell, nothing interesting has > happened since the previous select(). In this case the select() is only > looking at read()'s. You have a very serious misunderstanding of what 'select' does. The 'select' function is level triggered and state based, not edge triggered or event based. The situation was the same as before, and so the same result is required. The kernel assumes that either you handled the error condition or you aren't going to handle the error condition. In either case, the correct thing to do is to again inform you of the error. Suppose the first 'select' comes from code that is just curious how many sockets are ready but has no intention of handling the events. Not reporting the error on the next call to 'select' would be disastrous. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
