Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 14:02:30 PST From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com (Joe Greco), jdp@polstra.com, scrappy@ki.net, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sockets question... Message-ID: <96Nov15.140232pst.177557@crevenia.parc.xerox.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:48:35 PST." <199611151748.KAA26388@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199611151748.KAA26388@phaeton.artisoft.com> Terry wrote: >[long quote from socket man page] > >If you want to get technical, according to this description, if you are >using a SOCK_STREAM, then a read on a blocking socket will act like a >recv(2) or recvfrom(2) with flags MSG_WAITALL by default. That's a wild thing to get from that description. What I can get from that description is: - data is not lost or duplicated. - the connection is broken if data cannot be transmitted. - the connection can be optionally send keepalives in the absence of data. - an error is indicated if the keepalive fails. - SIGPIPE means you wrote on a closed socket. What part talks about how a blocking read works? >Maybe you should be using SOCK_SEQPACKET instead of SOCK_STREAM? There is no mapping from SOCK_SEQPACKET to an IP protocol. Maybe there will be if the IETF standardizes SFRP <draft-odell-srfp-00.txt>, but there is not today. Bill
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?96Nov15.140232pst.177557>