[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <p737inzne6i.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Date: 14 Aug 2007 02:38:13 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Shay Goikhman <GOIKHMAN@...ibm.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, mtk-manpages@....net
Subject: Re: Problem with semantics?
Shay Goikhman <GOIKHMAN@...ibm.com> writes:
> Dear Linux maintainers,
>
> I'm doing :
>
> setsockopt(s, SO_RCVTIMEO, t1 ); // set time-out
> t1 on socket while block receiving on it
> select(,,, &fd_set_including(s), .., &errs, t2); // block till
> receive or time-out t 2 jointly on a set of sockets
>
> Apparently, I could no find reference on the coupled behavior of the two
> above statements in Linux documentation.
> As I understand the blocking semantics, I would expect that if t1<t2 ,
> select should return after t1 with the descriptor 's' in 'errs' if 's' does
> not become readable in the t1 interval.
>
> It is not so in life -- select ignores t1 altogether.
>
> Do you have some enlightening knowledge on the matter?
RCVTIMEO only applies to recvmsg et.al., similar to SNDTIMEO only
apply to sendmsg etc. But select/poll only report events, they
do not actually send or receive by themselves.
Michael, perhaps you can clarify that in the manpages
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists