Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 20:03:54 -0700 From: "'Alfred Perlstein'" <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Jonathan Graehl <jonathan@graehl.org> 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: <20010507200353.X18676@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <000201c0d73b$cae4abc0$6dfeac40@straylight.com>; from jonathan@graehl.org on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 02:22:13PM -0700 References: <20010507022726.P18676@fw.wintelcom.net> <000201c0d73b$cae4abc0$6dfeac40@straylight.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jonathan Graehl <jonathan@graehl.org> [010507 14:22] wrote: > 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? Yes. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [alfred@freebsd.org] Daemon News Magazine in your snail-mail! http://magazine.daemonnews.org/ 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?20010507200353.X18676>