Re: Should O_NONBLOCK be copied from listening socket to accepting socket?

From: Herbert Xu (herbert@gondor.apana.org.au)
Date: Thu Sep 07 2000 - 00:57:40 EST

Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: We are as good as our tools"
Previous message: Luca Montecchiani: "Re: [PATCH?] Extended PTBL partition check for 2.4"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: Should O_NONBLOCK be copied from listening socket to accepting socket?"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: Should O_NONBLOCK be copied from listening socket to accepting socket?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Chris Evans <chris@scary.beasts.org> wrote:

> Well, in our own manpages

> man 7 socket

> It is possible to do non-blocking IO on sockets by setting
> the O_NONBLOCK flag on a socket file descriptor using
> fcntl(2). O_NONBLOCK is inherited through an accept.

Although accept(2) states the opposite:

       original socket s is unaffected by this call. Note that
       any per file descriptor flags (everything that can be set
       with the F_SETFL fcntl, like non blocking or async state)
       are not inherited across a accept.

-- 
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Alexander Viro: "Re: We are as good as our tools"
Previous message: Luca Montecchiani: "Re: [PATCH?] Extended PTBL partition check for 2.4"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: Should O_NONBLOCK be copied from listening socket to accepting socket?"
Next in thread: David S. Miller: "Re: Should O_NONBLOCK be copied from listening socket to accepting socket?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:28 EST