[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <562F7E16.2070906@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:37:26 +0000
From: Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: Casper.Dik@...cle.com, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, dholland-tech@...bsd.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
for sockets in accept(3)
On 27/10/2015 13:42, David Miller wrote:
> This semantic would only exist after Linux version X.Y.Z and vendor
> kernels that decided to backport the feature.
>
> Ergo, this application would ironically be non-portable on Linux
> machines.
Yes, that's true enough, until nobody was using the old versions any more.
> If portable Linux applications have to handle the situation using
> existing facilities there is absolutely zero value to add it now
> because it only will add more complexity to applications handling
> things correctly because they will always have two cases to somehow
> conditionally handle under Linux.
>
> And if the intention is to just always assume the close() semantic
> thing is there, then you have given me a disincentive to ever add the
> facility.
If you took that argument to it's logical extreme they you'd never make
any changes that made changes to existing behaviour, and that's patently
not the case.
--
Alan Burlison
--
--
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