Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 19:51:54 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Spurious EWOULDBLOCKs on NT4.0 Message-ID: <20011030195154.O891@cygbert.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygdev Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20011030003901 DOT A8989 AT redhat DOT com> <20011030124951 DOT A891 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <20011030132229 DOT A14004 AT redhat DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20011030132229.A14004@redhat.com>; from cgf@redhat.com on Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 01:22:29PM -0500 On Tue, Oct 30, 2001 at 01:22:29PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I'm not sure that my solution is correct, though (and, in fact, I checked > it in by mistake). > > The linux documentation says this: > > When enabled, a close(2) or shutdown(2) will not return until all queued messages for the socket have > been successfully sent or the linger timeout has been reached. Otherwise, the call returns immediately > and the closing is done in the background. When the socket is closed as part of exit(2), it always > lingers in the background. > > That sounds like we shouldn't be blocking on close, but should just > be ignoring the EAGAIN. > > I'm going to make that change in a few minutes. Please don't. You can't rely on the Linux behaviour in Cygwin due to the ugly way WSACleanup() works. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat, Inc.