Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:27:08 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Brian Matthews <blm@actzero.com> Cc: "'nate@yogotech.com'" <nate@yogotech.com>, Allen Landsidel <all@biosys.net>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Threads vs. blocking sockets Message-ID: <15043.35980.669828.971544@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <F0D64494733BD411BB9A00D0B74A0264021C9E@cpe-24-221-167-196.ca.sprintbbd.net> References: <F0D64494733BD411BB9A00D0B74A0264021C9E@cpe-24-221-167-196.ca.sprintbbd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> | Therefore, if you call a blocking system call, *ALL* threads > | block, thus causing your entire application to 'hang'. > > That's why there are wrappers for the socket calls in libc_r, so a socket as > seen by the kernel is always nonblocking (and thus won't hang the entire > application), but a socket seen by the application can be blocking or > nonblocking, whichever makes most sense for the application. Unfortunately, > the wrappers only do half the job. Again, all threading libraries I've used (not just on FreeBSD) *require* the user to check that when sending/receiving data, the caller must make sure that all the expected data has been sent/received. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15043.35980.669828.971544>