Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:19:09 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: "Arne H. Juul" <arnej@pvv.ntnu.no> Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, freebsd-java@freebsd.org Subject: Re: close() of active socket does not work on FreeBSD 6 Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612120917130.6946@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612111956110.2938@sea.ntplx.net> References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0612111535280.32258@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no> <20061211171115.GD311@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0612112259050.12159@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no> <200612120816.07608.davidxu@freebsd.org> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0612120142010.30236@decibel.pvv.ntnu.no> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0612111956110.2938@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > Common sense leads me to think that a close() should release > threads in IO operations (reads/writes/selects/polls) and > return EBADF or something appropriate. At least when behavior > is not dictated by POSIX or other historical/defactor behavior. BTW, I tested the behavior on Solaris. Solaris returns EBADF with the posted sample C program. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0612120917130.6946>