On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 04:15:33PM +0000, Alan Burlison wrote: > >close(2) as specified by POSIX doesn't prohibit this weird revoke-like > >behavior, but there's nothing in there that mandates it either. (I > >thought this discussion had already clarified that.) > > There was an attempt to interpret POSIX that way, with which I still > disagree. If a FD is closed or reassigned then any current pending > operations on it should be terminated.
C&V, please. > >Note that while NetBSD apparently supports this behavior because > >someone copied it from Solaris, I'm about to go recommend it be > >removed. > > Which behaviour? The abort accept() on close() behaviour? That, and aborting anything else too. Close isn't revoke. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
