Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:04:55 +0100 (BST) From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> To: "Robert S. Sciuk" <rob@ControlQ.com> Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, Marc Slemko <marcs@znep.com>, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: concurrent select()s on listen socket broken under SMP Message-ID: <14093.6647.297622.735051@chiark.greenend.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <Pine.UW2.3.96.990408170026.12803A-100000@fatlady.controlq.com> References: <14093.5670.813002.917842@chiark.greenend.org.uk> <Pine.UW2.3.96.990408170026.12803A-100000@fatlady.controlq.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert S. Sciuk writes: > > Why not do it and see what breaks?? Just kidding ... you > may want to re-consider the suggestion of putting a mutex > around the accept ... use SYSVSEM's for portability just > in case this behaviour is apparent on other OS'es ... You'll > serialize on the accept, but hey! you need to do that anyways. Well, that's not entirely desirable if there's more than one connection be accept()ed at any one time. > This way you won't have to suffer the consequences of an obscurely > hacked kernel, nor do you have to explain to your customer why a > kernel rebuild is neccessary to install an application 8-). We are the only people who need to know, and we aren't scared of obscurely hacked kernels :-) Tony. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14093.6647.297622.735051>