Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 07:00 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Per Bothner
(30 Jun 2013 07:46 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 08:35 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Per Bothner
(30 Jun 2013 15:47 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 17:01 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Per Bothner
(30 Jun 2013 17:19 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 17:47 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Per Bothner
(30 Jun 2013 18:04 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 18:29 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Per Bothner
(30 Jun 2013 23:11 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
John Cowan
(01 Jul 2013 20:01 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Shiro Kawai
(30 Jun 2013 09:02 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 09:30 UTC)
|
Re: Last call Shiro Kawai (30 Jun 2013 09:54 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 10:27 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Shiro Kawai
(30 Jun 2013 11:44 UTC)
|
Re: Last call
Takashi Kato
(30 Jun 2013 17:02 UTC)
|
E.g. a server accepts a connection, then spawn a child to handle it. The server wants to close the socket to reclaim fd in the process, but the child still needs to communicate with the client. >From: Takashi Kato <xxxxxx@ymail.com> Subject: Re: Last call Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:30:36 +0200 > I'll add the following sentence to socket-close; > > The procedure should not shutdown the given socket. To shutdown a > socket, socket-shutdown should be called explicitly. > > This is my curiosity. I think most of platforms free fd when close(2) > is called and means the given socket fd will be invalid. What would be > the happy case that socket-close doesn't automatically shutdown the > socket? > > > _/_/ > Takashi Kato > E-mail: xxxxxx@ymail.com