Combined reply:
Mark - Point taken. But even if it worked correctly everywhere, to me there
seems to be something aesthetically wrong about just letting sockets close
themselves. Kind of like a malloc() without a free().
Wayne - Wouldn't the atexit solution require that we keep a list of fds to
> Just because Linux lets you get away without it doesn't mean its a good idea.
Except this has nothing to do with linux - this is unix behaviour that
goes "all the way back", it's part of the process model. It's part of
what exiting *does*, so it *is* a bug in cygwin if it isn't doing the
clean
No. That just moves the shutdown call from whren you finish with the fd to where
you start using the fd - that's got to be less intuitive.
Surely it isn't too much to close file descriptors you open? Just because Linux
lets you get away without it doesn't mean its a good idea.
Anyway, if I provid
I wasn't. But he's addressing the same problem, in a difference case to my
initial patch
Max.
> Are you all aware of the work done by Jonathan Kamens last July?
> See bug 3236 ...
>
> http://rsync.samba.org/cgi-bin/rsync/incoming?id=3236
>
> Sorry if this has already been discussed: I am joining
On May 14, 6:26am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Max Bowsher) wrote:
-- Subject: rsync digest, Vol 1 #717 - 12 msgs
>
> + After thinking about it a bit more I'm somewhat inclined to call it a
> + bug in Cygwin and try to get them to fix it.
>
> Well, you could, but I'd much prefer it if you didn't :-)
> I
> After thinking about it a bit more I'm somewhat inclined to call it a
> bug in Cygwin and try to get them to fix it.
Well, you could, but I'd much prefer it if you didn't :-)
I guess its time for you to make an executive descision - Is it reasonable to
include code in rsync to close sockets, ev
On 10 May 2002, Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem was especially severe here, because rsync didn't even
> close the socket in these cases - it would write its last data, then return a
> couple of times, and exit().
It should not matter:
The function _exit terminates th
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 04:22:45PM -0700, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 9 May 2002, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The answer has to come from Martin and I haven't seen anything posted
> > from him lately, he must be unavailable.
>
> Sorry, I've been out of town this week.
>
> > On Tue,
Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry, I've been out of town this week.
No problem.
> This is the shutdown one, right? I wanted to check about portability
> before we put it in. Snader's "Effective TCP/IP Programming" says that
>
> shutdown(fd, 1);
>
> is OK on both Unix and Windows
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 04:22:45PM -0700, Martin Pool wrote:
> shutdown(fd, 1);
Perhaps use SHUT_WR instead of 1?
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/
On 9 May 2002, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The answer has to come from Martin and I haven't seen anything posted
> from him lately, he must be unavailable.
Sorry, I've been out of town this week.
> On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 03:28:06PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On th
What is the status of my patch?
If the answer is 'In a ToDo list', then I will be quite happy, but if there are
any objections to it, I would like to resolve them.
Thankyou.
Max.
--
To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://w
What is the status of this patch? (Ideally I'd like it to make it in to 2.5.6,
so I can stop using a modified version). I have successfully used rsync with the
patch on Linux, and have done a test where a client does connect(), then
sleep(), whilst the server does write(), shutdown(,SHUT_WR),close
Max Bowsher [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] writes:
> I though that shutdown acts as below:
(no data loss)
> SUSv2 is annoyingly somewhat vague on the specifics.
So are the FreeBSD/Linux man pages. They don't specifically indicate
truncation or flushing of data, although I don't recall ever thinking
of shu
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 05:40:07PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Action of the function depends on the value of howto -
> SHUT_RD - read half of the connection is closed. The data currently in the
> socket receive buffer is discarded.
> SHUT_WR - write half of the connection is closed. The data in t
I though that shutdown acts as below:
--
Syntax:
int shutdown(int sockfd, int howto);
returns 0 if OK, -1 on error.
Action of the function depends on the value of howto -
SHUT_RD - read half of the connection is closed. The data currently in the
socket receive buffer is discarded.
SHUT_WR - w
On 25 Apr 2002, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The problem is caused because rsync does not close its sockets, and WinSock is a
> > quite strict on this. The solution is to shutdown and close the fd.
> > This is a 5-minute hack I've done to fix the obvious occurrences of the problem.
Does anybody know if this might cause problems on non-Windows machines?
Would "shutdown" need to be checked in configure, or is it implemented on
all Unix variants? I don't recall ever seeing a need for it on Unix.
- Dave
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:39:57AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> The proble
18 matches
Mail list logo
