On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:56:20AM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I agree with your analysis. I think your current behavior is probably best.
Ok.
> As I read the Linux implementation, a
> process dying (even by SIGKILL) will just stick around and block until the
> (unbounded) linger timeout ex
I agree with your analysis. I think your current behavior is probably best.
This is a general problem with all semantics that entail something active
or synchronized happening on `close', e.g. POSIX.1 file locking has similar
questions (though not quite as bad). As I read the Linux implementati
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 01:43:52AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I checked in a similar implementation that works correctly,
Mmmh. I just read up about SO_LINGER in Stevens, and it seems that the
implementation ismostly bogus. As far as I can see, the sock_release only
ever happens when the
