On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:38:48PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> @@ -83,12 +91,6 @@ soo_ioctl(struct file *fp, u_long cmd, c
> switch (cmd) {
>
> case FIONBIO:
> - s = solock(so);
> - if (*(int *)data)
> - so->so_state |= SS_NBIO;
> - else
> - so->so_state &= ~SS_NBIO;
> - sounlock(so, s);
> break;
man 2 ioctl documents FIONBIO. Should we set or clear FNONBLOCK
instead?
> @@ -1128,8 +1126,7 @@ sosplice(struct socket *so, int fd, off_
> /* If no fd is given, unsplice by removing existing link. */
> if (fd < 0) {
> /* Lock receive buffer. */
> - if ((error = sblock(so, &so->so_rcv,
> - (so->so_state & SS_NBIO) ? M_NOWAIT : M_WAITOK)) != 0) {
> + if ((error = sblock(so, &so->so_rcv, M_WAITOK)) != 0) {
> return (error);
> }
> if (so->so_sp->ssp_socket)
> @@ -1157,8 +1154,7 @@ sosplice(struct socket *so, int fd, off_
> }
>
> /* Lock both receive and send buffer. */
> - if ((error = sblock(so, &so->so_rcv,
> - (so->so_state & SS_NBIO) ? M_NOWAIT : M_WAITOK)) != 0) {
> + if ((error = sblock(so, &so->so_rcv, M_WAITOK)) != 0) {
> goto frele;
> }
> if ((error = sblock(so, &sosp->so_snd, M_WAITOK)) != 0) {
I have copied the logic from soreceive. So I think sosplice should
also use FNONBLOCK. That would mean to pass the f_flag to sosetopt().
> @@ -223,12 +223,11 @@ fifo_read(void *v)
> if (uio->uio_resid == 0)
> return (0);
> if (ap->a_ioflag & IO_NDELAY)
> - rso->so_state |= SS_NBIO;
> + flags = MSG_DONTWAIT;
I think a |= would be nicer here.
> @@ -245,20 +244,17 @@ fifo_write(void *v)
> {
> struct vop_write_args *ap = v;
> struct socket *wso = ap->a_vp->v_fifoinfo->fi_writesock;
> - int error;
> + int error, flags = 0;
>
> #ifdef DIAGNOSTIC
> if (ap->a_uio->uio_rw != UIO_WRITE)
> panic("fifo_write mode");
> #endif
> - /* XXXSMP changing state w/o lock isn't safe. */
> if (ap->a_ioflag & IO_NDELAY)
> - wso->so_state |= SS_NBIO;
> + flags = MSG_DONTWAIT;
And |= also here.
> @@ -384,8 +380,8 @@ fifo_close(void *v)
> }
> }
> if (fip->fi_readers == 0 && fip->fi_writers == 0) {
> - error1 = soclose(fip->fi_readsock);
> - error2 = soclose(fip->fi_writesock);
> + error1 = soclose(fip->fi_readsock, MSG_DONTWAIT);
> + error2 = soclose(fip->fi_writesock, MSG_DONTWAIT);
> free(fip, M_VNODE, sizeof *fip);
> vp->v_fifoinfo = NULL;
> }
You are adding MSG_DONTWAIT to a bunch of closes. Are you sure
that you do not change behavior here? Does a blocking fifo close
with SO_LINGER wait for the other end?
> @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ nfs_disconnect(struct nfsmount *nmp)
> so = nmp->nm_so;
> nmp->nm_so = NULL;
> soshutdown(so, SHUT_RDWR);
> - soclose(so);
> + soclose(so, MSG_DONTWAIT);
> }
> }
NFS never sets SS_NBIO, so I think we should not use MSG_DONTWAIT.
bluhm
