Hello!
> Sure, workarounds exist, but they just complicates
> things.
Working around --- what?
An example of application hitting the case is enough to make
me completely agreed.
But genarally we are not going to match any os and even yourselves
yesterday or tomorrow in the cases when behaviour
Alexy wrote:
>> Damn, we did not test behaviour on absolutely new
>> clean never connected socket... Solaris really may
>> return 0 on it.
>>
>> However, looking from other hand the issue looks as
>> absolutely academic and not related to practice in
>> any way.
Hi,
I'm not sure this issue is r
Hello!
> True, this behavior was changed from 2.2.x. We now match the behavior
> of other svr4 systems, in particular Solaris.
Damn, we did not test behaviour on absolutely new clean never
connected socket... Solaris really may return 0 on it.
However, looking from other hand the issue looks a
What version of Solaris should the poll() call behave
like? I tried the test program that I posted in the
original post on this thread on a couple of versions
of Solaris, and they all behaved like Linux 2.2, not
Linux 2.4.
The following version strings are from sysinfo on the
Solaris machines th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David S. Miller) writes:
>Jeffrey Butler writes:
> > I've noticed that poll() calls on IPv4 sockets do
> > not behave the same under linux 2.4 vs. linux 2.2.14.
> > Linux 2.4 will return POLLHUP for a socket that is not
> > connected (and has never been connected) while Linu
Jeffrey Butler writes:
> I've noticed that poll() calls on IPv4 sockets do
> not behave the same under linux 2.4 vs. linux 2.2.14.
> Linux 2.4 will return POLLHUP for a socket that is not
> connected (and has never been connected) while Linux
> 2.2 will not.
> The following example pro
6 matches
Mail list logo
