Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 7 May 2001 20:03:54 -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:  <20010507200353.X18676@fw.wintelcom.net>
In-Reply-To: <000201c0d73b$cae4abc0$6dfeac40@straylight.com>; from jonathan@graehl.org on Mon, May 07, 2001 at 02:22:13PM -0700
References:  <20010507022726.P18676@fw.wintelcom.net> <000201c0d73b$cae4abc0$6dfeac40@straylight.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
* Jonathan Graehl <jonathan@graehl.org> [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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010507200353.X18676>