Re: [Dbmail-dev] problem in select based setup

2006-11-17 Thread Paul J Stevens
Aaron Stone wrote: > The current fix is very minimal, and I believe it does the trick. But > looking into it some more, I think we can make a slightly broader change > that has the same effect but with fewer calls to fcntl... agree. > We should check to see if the listen sockets inherit blockin

Re: [Dbmail-dev] problem in select based setup

2006-11-17 Thread Aaron Stone
The current fix is very minimal, and I believe it does the trick. But looking into it some more, I think we can make a slightly broader change that has the same effect but with fewer calls to fcntl... On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 09:53 +0100, Paul J Stevens wrote: > Aaron, > > looking at your patch; why

Re: [Dbmail-dev] problem in select based setup

2006-11-17 Thread Paul J Stevens
Aaron Stone wrote: > I opened and then promptly resolved bug # 449 to document this issue and > the fix that is now in SVN. > > I would very much like to see that each non-trivial* change in the 2.2.x > series is identified with a bug number. I agree. --

Re: [Dbmail-dev] problem in select based setup

2006-11-17 Thread Paul J Stevens
Aaron, looking at your patch; why do we need to restore the blocking flags on the listenSocket? Isn't it enough to just force blocking on the client socket? Aaron Stone wrote: > I opened and then promptly resolved bug # 449 to document this issue and > the fix that is now in SVN. > > I would ve

Re: [Dbmail-dev] problem in select based setup

2006-11-17 Thread Aaron Stone
I opened and then promptly resolved bug # 449 to document this issue and the fix that is now in SVN. I would very much like to see that each non-trivial* change in the 2.2.x series is identified with a bug number. (* where trivial means something like a change to the Debian packaging, or a typo i

Re: [Dbmail-dev] problem in select based setup

2006-11-17 Thread Aaron Stone
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 23:31 +, Aaron Stone wrote: > > What happens in 2.2.0 is somewhat similar to what is described above: a > > child has done a O_NONBLOCK when another does F_GETFL. This way, the > > client socket ends up being non-blocking - which is not what the calls > > to fgets expect.

Re: [Dbmail-dev] problem in select based setup

2006-11-17 Thread Aaron Stone
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006, Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Aaron Stone wrote: >> Conflicting issues: >> http://cr.yp.to/unix/nonblock.html >> >> man 2 accept: >> NOTES >>There may not always be a connection waiting after a SIGIO is >>delivered or select(2) or poll(2) ret

Re: [Dbmail-dev] problem in select based setup

2006-11-16 Thread Paul J Stevens
Aaron Stone wrote: > Conflicting issues: > http://cr.yp.to/unix/nonblock.html > > man 2 accept: > NOTES >There may not always be a connection waiting after a SIGIO is >delivered or select(2) or poll(2) return a readability >event because the connection might have been r

Re: [Dbmail-dev] problem in select based setup

2006-11-16 Thread Aaron Stone
Conflicting issues: http://cr.yp.to/unix/nonblock.html man 2 accept: NOTES There may not always be a connection waiting after a SIGIO is delivered or select(2) or poll(2) return a readability event because the connection might have been removed by an asynchronous n

Re: [Dbmail-dev] problem in select based setup

2006-11-16 Thread Paul J Stevens
Looks like I've nailed it already. Hang on. Paul J Stevens wrote: > Aaron, > > there's a serious problem in the select based setup. > > With the O_NONBLOCK flags, we run into problems with non-blocking client > sockets, even though I thought I had fixed this. > > Without the whole fnctl dance,