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

[Buddy Lucas]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:42:04 +0100, Martijn Sipkema <martijn@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: "Buddy Lucas" <buddy.lucas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 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.
> 
> But with the current Linux implementation it is possible that a call to select()
> returns while a call to recvmsg() would have blocked, and that is not
> correct according to POSIX.

Come on. Those are different things. (If POSIX says this explicitly,
it's even more broken than I thought.)

> And I indeed read this as meaning that the first recvmsg() after the select()
> may not block.

Well, then you *are* wrong. ;-)


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/