From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jun 7 12: 9:25 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from superconductor.rush.net (superconductor.rush.net [208.9.155.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5D037B408 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 12:09:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@superconductor.rush.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by superconductor.rush.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f57J9IX08202; Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:09:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 15:09:17 -0400 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Graham Barr Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: read(2) and ETIMEDOUT Message-ID: <20010607150917.U1832@superconductor.rush.net> References: <20010607171501.S50444@pobox.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us In-Reply-To: <20010607171501.S50444@pobox.com>; from gbarr@pobox.com on Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 05:15:01PM +0100 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Graham Barr [010607 12:17] wrote: Since people seem to be helping you in other ways, I'll just answer this one: > So, here is my question. Does anyone know under what circumstance > ETIMEDOUT may be returned from read(2) or is this a potential bug > somewhere ? I'm quite sure ETIMEDOUT is a result of hitting the setsockopt SO_RCVTIMEO value when doing a read. -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message