Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 14:22:13 -0700 From: "Jonathan Graehl" <jonathan@graehl.org> To: "'Alfred Perlstein'" <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Do I need to close after shutdown if I don't want to leak descriptors? (making sure TCP retransmits all my data) Message-ID: <000201c0d73b$cae4abc0$6dfeac40@straylight.com> In-Reply-To: <20010507022726.P18676@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for the suggestion - it does fit the bill, although I have to getsockopt(SO_SNDBUF on a per-socket basis (I'm using the kqueue NOTE_LOWAT, which doesn't trigger if I supply a very large number - the exact SO_SNDBUF needs to be used). I'd honestly just prefer to have the kernel close the socket for me, though ;) It is certain that a close() after shutdown() is needed to avoid leaking descriptors, then? > Here's a trick that may work. > > use setsockopt to set SO_SNDLOWAT == SO_SNDBUF, when you get > a writeable event back you know the socket is clear. this is > good because you should be able to go back to using > poll/kevent to monitor them. > > -- > -Alfred Perlstein - [alfred@freebsd.org] > Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s > technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years > of accumulated wisdom. > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000201c0d73b$cae4abc0$6dfeac40>