Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > 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 :)
I would add that, since flags inheritance through accept() is platform-dependent while the default timeout is a well-defined Python feature, I would lean slightly towards applying the default timeout. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
