> On April 11, 2016, 9:46 p.m., Benjamin Mahler wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/socket.hpp, lines 176-187 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/46026/diff/1/?file=1339341#file1339341line176> > > > > Why don't we instead take the "`int how`" as an argument and make the > > SHUT_RD explicit in the callers? This interface had come up in the past, > > would like to see from benh/joris if there's any that the SHUT_RD was made > > implicit and no control was given to the caller. > > Neil Conway wrote: > No objection from me -- I just assumed there was a reason we were > choosing to deviate from how `shutdown(2)` works.
I talked to a few folks about this and no one could get very excited about changing it, so I'm inclined to leave as-is for now. - Neil ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46026/#review128261 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 11, 2016, 11:53 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/46026/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 11, 2016, 11:53 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Benjamin Mahler, and Joris Van > Remoortere. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > This is slightly confusing, because it doesn't match the > semantics of the shutdown(2) POSIX function. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/socket.hpp > 4cb49680d1304899a4ee675ac07379e51d9c55b1 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46026/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
