Re: UDP recvmsg blocks after select(), 2.6 bug?

[Buddy Lucas]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:58:39 +0100, Martijn Sipkema <martijn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > But then I am one of those who thinks it's sane to check for
> > EWOULDBLOCK on a nonblocking socket after blocking in select().
> 
> A POSIX comliant implementation would never do this.

Here's your own quote, from a couple of hundred mails ago:

> According to POSIX:

> A descriptor shall be considered ready for reading when a call to an
>  input function with O_NONBLOCK clear would not block, whether or not
>  the function would transfer data successfully.

You concluded from this that, if select() says a descriptor is
readable, the subsequent recvmsg() must not block. The point is, from
your quote I cannot deduct anything but: a recvmsg() on a descriptor
that is readable must not block -- which makes perfect sense.

But unless POSIX also says something about the conservability of
"readability" of descriptors, specifically in between select() and
recvmsg(), your conclusion is just wrong.

> > Let's just document this and move on to something more important.
> 
> It actually _is_ important. Just implement select() and recvmsg() as
> described in the standard.

I am very glad Linux makes sane decisions while trying to adhere to
the standards as much as possible.


Cheers,
Buddy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/