https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3271
------- Comment #9 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-12-02 21:23 MST -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Thanks for the suggested patches. I agree that those continue statements
> after
> select() returns -1 look like they should be improved, but I'm not sure why
> you
> allowed the code in the read_timeout() function to fall through after an
> error:
I didn't change read_timeout().
> In the writefd_unbuffered() function, what errno is being returned when your
> new code is being triggered?
Good point. When select() returns an error, we ought not to write. So, my
code could be put right after check_timeout(). The bug is caused by the fact
that select() doesn't return an error. It keeps returning 0. In a perfect
world, select() would detect that the socket is in an error state, but it
doesn't. It sees a full transmit buffer and says that the socket is not ready.
How about this:
if (count == 0) {
check_timeout();
--- my patch ---
}
if (count <= 0) {
--- leave this as is ---
}
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.samba.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
--
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
