| To: | mtk-lists@xxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: shutdown() and SHUT_RD on TCP sockets - broken? |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:38:10 +0200 |
| Cc: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <27451.1057745479@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <27451.1057745479@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 12:11:19 +0200 (MEST) mtk-lists@xxxxxxx wrote: . > > > From viewpoint of TCP the behaviour described in Stevens' book > > is highly unnatural. SHUT_RD on TCP does not make any sense. > > A while back I had some communication with Andi Kleen on this point, > and he suggested that the TCP could send an RST in this case, much Linux sends an RST when data arrives that the user cannot read anymore because the receiving socket is already closed. It would make sense to extend this behaviour to SHUT_RD. But there is no natural place to implement it outside the fast path, and it's so obscure that it is not worth slowing common cases down. -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: shutdown() and SHUT_RD on TCP sockets - broken?, mtk-lists |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | hello my dear friend, JULIANA HOWARD |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: shutdown() and SHUT_RD on TCP sockets - broken?, mtk-lists |
| Next by Thread: | Re: ipsec without interface, bert hubert |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |