On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 11:48:10AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> Although what you propose is better than nothing, I would not do
> anything until we really understand what's going on.
Ok with me.
> Win98/ME
> 1) CLOSE_WAIT / WSAENOBUFS
>Application level fix: fcntl("close on fork")
>
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I'd propose to try it first as I said in my previous mail:
Corinna,
did you see my e-mails of last two evenings?
- the blocking is a Win98 problem, the linger helps only for NT
- for NT, linger is (probably) not the "real" solution.
Although what you propose is better
On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 10:34:47AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> On cygwin-patches@, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> > >So an ideal fix would detect "end of life" situations. Here is a brain
> > >storming idea: on a Cygwin close(), do a shutdown(.,2), free the Cygwin
> > Oops, absolutely no shutdown().
>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 10:12:08AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > That makes sense... but doesn't that again break something else?
>
> What it might break is the case for which linger was added in the first
> place, i.e. processes terminating and Windows flush
At 10:12 AM 4/30/2002 -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>Now I have never observed this myself, and don't have a strong opinion.
>Do we have a reproducible case to understand exactly what's going on?
This time I looked on NT at the example provided by Jonathan Kamens
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/200
On cygwin-patches@, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >So an ideal fix would detect "end of life" situations. Here is a brain
> >storming idea: on a Cygwin close(), do a shutdown(.,2), free the Cygwin
> Oops, absolutely no shutdown().
>
> Pierre
Why no shutdown? (I am aware that this is dangerously off-
At 10:12 AM 4/30/2002 -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>Now I have never observed this myself, and don't have a strong opinion.
>Do we have a reproducible case to understand exactly what's going on?
I found the nice example by Jonathan Kammen, using socketpair()
http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2001-07
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> That makes sense... but doesn't that again break something else?
What it might break is the case for which linger was added in the first
place, i.e. processes terminating and Windows flushing their outgoing
packet queue (in the case of slow connections), as opposed
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 07:32:23AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> At 10:32 AM 4/30/2002 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> Of course we are then exposed to the issue that Cygwin was trying
> >> to fix by setting linger to On, i.e. the case of a process
> >> exiting just after the close(). For
At 10:32 AM 4/30/2002 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> Of course we are then exposed to the issue that Cygwin was trying
>> to fix by setting linger to On, i.e. the case of a process
>> exiting just after the close(). Fortunately sockets are usually
>
>...why cant we keep that, i. e.
>
> If t
On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 08:58:09PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> 2) The reason the sockets persist is that they are
> non-blocking. On Win95/98/ME close() doesn't work
> correctly for non-blocking sockets, as reported in
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2002-q2/msg00095.html
>
> The p
In the thread
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/2002-04/msg00515.html
Steve Chew, Chris and Corinna discuss a listen()
problem with ssh -R. Here is the explanation.
1) In Windows, a connect() always creates a listen socket
with the same port number as the connect socket.
That's easy to verify,
12 matches
Mail list logo
