[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871txo7evy.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:51:13 +0000
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, David.Laight@...LAB.COM,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: unix: non blocking recvmsg() should not return -EINTR
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes:
> On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 22:06 +0000, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
>> That would be a seriously bizarre idea. The thread of execution which
>> does the supposed-to-be-non-blocking call shouldn't become blocked for
>> an indefinite time. Which means it should not wait indefinitely for a
>> thread which - in turn - waits indefinitely for an external event (and
>> hence, the original problem should never have existed to begin with as
>> there would neither be an opportunity nor a reason to interrupt in the
>> non-blocking case).
>
>
> This is not what your program do.
>
> Your program does a read() on a blocking fd.
It does both, actually: The forked process calls read while the socket
is still blocking, the other process calls read after it was switched to
non-blocking. This can easily be determined with strace.
Again, please stop dumping your infiltered rage onto me just because I
happen to disagree with you. You won't change that.
--
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