From owner-freebsd-net Mon May 7 20: 3:56 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92BC37B424 for ; Mon, 7 May 2001 20:03:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f4833sV01693; Mon, 7 May 2001 20:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 20:03:54 -0700 From: "'Alfred Perlstein'" To: Jonathan Graehl Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Do I need to close after shutdown if I don't want to leak descriptors? (making sure TCP retransmits all my data) Message-ID: <20010507200353.X18676@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010507022726.P18676@fw.wintelcom.net> <000201c0d73b$cae4abc0$6dfeac40@straylight.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <000201c0d73b$cae4abc0$6dfeac40@straylight.com>; from jonathan@graehl.org on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 02:22:13PM -0700 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Jonathan Graehl [010507 14:22] wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion - it does fit the bill, although I have to > getsockopt(SO_SNDBUF on a per-socket basis (I'm using the kqueue > NOTE_LOWAT, which doesn't trigger if I supply a very large number - the > exact SO_SNDBUF needs to be used). I'd honestly just prefer to have the > kernel close the socket for me, though ;) It is certain that a close() > after shutdown() is needed to avoid leaking descriptors, then? Yes. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [alfred@freebsd.org] Daemon News Magazine in your snail-mail! http://magazine.daemonnews.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message