Re: [PATCH v12 04/20] index-helper: new daemon for caching index and related stuff

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 06/26/2016 12:27 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 9:21 PM, David Turner <novalis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/25/2016 10:33 AM, Duy Nguyen wrote:

+               /*
+                * Our connection to the client is blocking since a
client
+                * can always be killed by SIGINT or similar.
+                */
+               set_socket_blocking_flag(client_fd, 0);


Out of curiosity, do we really need this? I thought default behavior
was always blocking (and checked linux kernel, it seemed to agree with
me). Maybe for extra safety because other OSes may default to
something else?


Yes -- see this bug report for details:
https://bugs.python.org/issue7995


I think we should refer to this issue in the comment block right
before set_socket_blocking_flag() call. Imagine a year from now, I may
read the code, decide this code is useless and try to remove it.

Assuming that we do keep this (see Eric Wong's note), I do not think we need a comment. It is documented in the man page for accept[1], and it is the reader's responsibility to understand standard POSIX APIs.



[1] "On Linux, the new socket returned by accept() does not inherit file status flags such as O_NONBLOCK and O_ASYNC from the listening socket. This behavior differs from the canonical BSD sockets implementation."


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]