Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 05:56:26 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <charon@labs.gr> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/cat cat.1 cat.c Message-ID: <20010926055625.A21817@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <200109251909.f8PJ9eJ03402@earth.backplane.com> References: <200109150039.f8F0dFZ41705@freefall.freebsd.org> <20010925211639.C57333@sunbay.com> <200109251909.f8PJ9eJ03402@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> wrote: > > : > :How about testing with stat(2) that an argument is a socket > :thus eliminating the need to open(2) sockets and connect(2) > :to non-sockets? > > I don't see any particular reason why. An open() failure is as fast > or faster then stat(). If it fails and we get the appropriate errno, > we try a connect(). Either connect() is supported or it isn't. If it > is a case of a missing file we don't try the connect() because we get > a different errno. I see no particular need to stat the path, no ill > effects will occur if the connect() fails. And there is always a possibility of a race condition between a stat() and an open(). So relying on stat() to control what open() and/or connect() will do is kind of dangerous in my book :-/ -giorgos To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010926055625.A21817>