Hello, On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That's pretty much the thing.. when you did shutdown(SHUT_RDWR), you set > that RCV_SHUTDOWN flag. You told the sockets layer that you don't want > to receive anything else from this fd. > > Please change that SHUT_RDWR to just SHUT_WR and see how it goes. Duh! Alright, it works fine with SHUT_WR. I was so focused on the transport layer that it didn't occur to me that SHUT_RDWR was what was setting the RCV_SHUTDOWN flag on the socket. Sorry about that. > For one-to-many, there is also this possibility: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6458#section-3.2 > To shut down the association gracefully, the user must call sendmsg() > with no data and with the SCTP_EOF flag set as described in > Section 5.3.4. The function returns immediately, and completion of > the graceful shutdown is indicated by an SCTP_ASSOC_CHANGE > notification of type SCTP_SHUTDOWN_COMP (see Section 6.1.1). Note > that this can also be done using the sctp_sendv() call described in > Section 9.12." > > in case you're intestered. (This cannot be used with > one-to-one/tcp-style) Thanks for the clarification about one-to-many. Definitely helpful. >> Question is, is this a bug? Should we fix it? > > Nope :) Indeed ;) Thank you very much for your time. Julien -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
