From owner-freebsd-smp Thu Apr 8 14: 7:14 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk (chiark.greenend.org.uk [195.224.76.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE2314D06 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:07:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fanf@chiark.greenend.org.uk) Received: from fanf by chiark.greenend.org.uk with local (Exim 2.02 #1) id 10VLyp-0001UO-00 (Debian); Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:04:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14093.6647.297622.735051@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:04:55 +0100 (BST) From: Tony Finch To: "Robert S. Sciuk" Cc: Tony Finch , Marc Slemko , smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: concurrent select()s on listen socket broken under SMP In-Reply-To: References: <14093.5670.813002.917842@chiark.greenend.org.uk> X-Mailer: VM 6.47 under Emacs 19.34.1 Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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