From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan  3 03:55:43 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9AD16A4CE
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat,  3 Jan 2004 03:55:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216C243D1F
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat,  3 Jan 2004 03:55:42 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192)
	id 16B995C7DE; Sat,  3 Jan 2004 03:55:42 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 03:55:42 -0800
From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
To: "David G. Lawrence" <dg@root.com>
Message-ID: <20040103115542.GW9623@elvis.mu.org>
References: <20040103005338.GU9623@elvis.mu.org>
	<20040103054115.GV56722@nexus.dglawrence.com>
	<20040103060156.GV9623@elvis.mu.org>
	<20040103085515.GR213@nexus.dglawrence.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040103085515.GR213@nexus.dglawrence.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sendfile erroniously returns ENOTCONN.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:55:43 -0000

* David G. Lawrence <dg@root.com> [040103 00:55] wrote:
> > * David G. Lawrence <dg@dglawrence.com> [040102 21:41] wrote:
> > > 
> > >    sendfile(8) tries to maintain compatibility with sosend as much as is
> > > reasonable. ENOTCONN is the appropriate error to return if the socket
> > > isn't connected. sosend checks SS_CANTSENDMORE prior to the check for
> > > SS_ISCONNECTED, however, and returns EPIPE in that case. Perhaps sendfile
> > > should be changed to do the same (just a though - I'm not proposing
> > > that this be done).
> > >    Removing the check entirely seems clearly wrong, however.
> > 
> > I had forgotten that sendfile bypasses sosend(9).  I could
> > add the check, is there a reason not to?  The one reason I
> > figured was that sometimes blocking sigpipe can be hairy inside
> > libraries.   Now that we can selectively disable SIGPIPE using
> > the setsockopt using Apple's code this is less of an issue.
> 
>    Yes, I think checking for SS_CATSENDMORE (and returning EPIPE) prior to
> checking SS_ISCONNECTED (and returning ENOTCONN as it does now) is the right
> thing to do.

Last question (I hope)... :)

Why not call sosend?

-- 
- Alfred Perlstein
- Research Engineering Development Inc.
- email: bright@mu.org cell: 408-480-4684