Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:19:47 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> Cc: Brian Matthews <blm@actzero.com>, "'nate@yogotech.com'" <nate@yogotech.com>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: Threads vs. blocking sockets Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010329161121.10486A-100000@pcnet1.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <15043.40533.488134.203176@nomad.yogotech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Nate Williams wrote: > > | 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. > > > > Linux doesn't, and I don't think Solaris does (we just moved so I can't try > > it now, but when I was investigating the problem I'm pretty sure I tried it > > on our Sun box). > > Are you using non-blocking sockets, and are you using a user-space > library on those OS's? (I suspect not, because when I last used Solaris > it acted that way). This thread has gotten rather large, and I'm picking a random message in which to reply... We should be able to easily make the threads library wait for all the data to be read or sent to blocking file descriptors. Perhaps this should go to -arch for discussion. I don't really care one way or the other, but I can change the current behaviour if necessary. -- Dan Eischen 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?Pine.SUN.3.91.1010329161121.10486A-100000>