On Tuesday 16 August 2005 20:39, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:38:14 +0200
>
> > Someone is setting nonblocking on my socket !
>
> Glad that's resolved...
Yes, my stupidity. There was one more fcntl() in my source than I thought :-(
B
From: Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:38:14 +0200
> Someone is setting nonblocking on my socket !
Glad that's resolved...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:03:11 +0100
> You are describing behaviour as expected with nonblocking set. That
> suggests to me that something or someone set or inherited the nonblock
> flag on that socket. Is the strange behaviour specific to the latest
> kernel ?
From: Kern Sibbald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PROBLEM: blocking read on socket repeatedly returns EAGAIN
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:19:39 +0200
> A read() on a TCP/IP socket, which should block returns -1 with errno=EAGAIN
If a signal is delivered to the process during the read(),
the
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 16:03, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2005-08-16 at 15:19 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > have written, nor does it write() anything. When my read() is issued, I
> > expect it to block, but it immediately returns with -1 and errno set to
> > EAGAIN. If the read() is re-issued,
On Maw, 2005-08-16 at 16:12 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> I verified that I have not explicitly set nonblocking on the socket, so
> expect
> it to be default blocking.
Depends where it came from and what OS. In particular the blocking state
of a socket returned from accept may be the same as the
On Tuesday 16 August 2005 16:03, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Maw, 2005-08-16 at 15:19 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > have written, nor does it write() anything. When my read() is issued, I
> > expect it to block, but it immediately returns with -1 and errno set to
> > EAGAIN. If the read() is re-issued,
On Maw, 2005-08-16 at 15:19 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> have written, nor does it write() anything. When my read() is issued, I
> expect it to block, but it immediately returns with -1 and errno set to
> EAGAIN. If the read() is re-issued, a CPU intensive loop results as long as
> the other e
A read() on a TCP/IP socket, which should block returns -1 with errno=EAGAIN
Unless I am mistaken, the read() should block as the socket is active with no
problems. The only "unusual" items are that I have set the network buffer
size to 32K (32 * 1024), IPTOS_THROUGHPUT, and keepalive. In addi
9 matches
Mail list logo
