Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> 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 :) ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue7995> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
