[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SO_LINGER (ugh)
From: |
Marcus Brinkmann |
Subject: |
Re: SO_LINGER (ugh) |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:37:28 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.22i |
On Mon, Oct 15, 2001 at 12:56:20AM -0400, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I agree with your analysis. I think your current behavior is probably best.
Ok.
> As I read the Linux implementation, a
> process dying (even by SIGKILL) will just stick around and block until the
> (unbounded) linger timeout expires, before it reports death to its parent.
> We will certainly never have behavior like that!
Mmmh. I think on exit the timeout does not apply (net/ipv4/af_inet.c:
inet_release):
* If the close is due to the process exiting, we never
* linger..
*/
timeout = 0;
if (sk->linger && !(current->flags & PF_EXITING)) {
timeout = HZ * sk->lingertime;
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de