Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 7 May 2001 02:27:26 -0700
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To:        Jonathan Graehl <jonathan@graehl.org>
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:  <20010507022726.P18676@fw.wintelcom.net>
In-Reply-To: <000001c0d6d5$87607e80$6dfeac40@straylight.com>; from jonathan@graehl.org on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 02:10:14AM -0700
References:  <000001c0d6d5$87607e80$6dfeac40@straylight.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
* Jonathan Graehl <jonathan@graehl.org> [010507 02:10] wrote:
> Scenario: I accept a (TCP) connection, write some data, close the
> connection.
> 
> Problem: close() does not perform an orderly shutdown, does not resend
> unacknowledged data - responds with RST to data/acks sent to me
> 
> Non-solution: SO_LINGER, makes close into a blocking call in order to
> get orderly shutdown

Here's a trick that may work.

use setsockopt to set SO_SNDLOWAT == SO_SNDBUF, when you get a writeable
event back you know the socket is clear.  this is good because you
should be able to go back to using poll/kevent to monitor them.

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [alfred@freebsd.org]
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010507022726.P18676>