Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:17:30 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: karl@mcs.net (Karl Denninger) Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, karl@mcs.net, scrappy@ki.net, jdp@polstra.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Sockets question... Message-ID: <199611151617.KAA28016@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199611151613.KAA21230@Mercury.mcs.net> from "Karl Denninger" at Nov 15, 96 10:13:58 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > Are you checking the return value from write() to make sure it actually > > > > thinks that N bytes were _written_? > > > > > > > > ... JG > > > > > > Uh, hang on a second... > > > > > > Are you saying that the behavior of a *TCP* connection is such that you > > > would expect to see a write(2) call to the socket come back with a short > > > count for any reason other than the remote having closed or some other > > > kind of transport error (ie: host unreachable, etc)? > > > > Yes: a nonblocking socket write will most definitely display this > > behaviour. > > Yes, but I did not set nonblocking mode on that socket. Did you receive a signal? That is known to cause similar behaviour on SunOS... However, if you received a return value from write() equal to the number of bytes you supplied to write(), I would state that the problem is almost certainly elsewhere. ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611151617.KAA28016>