Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 04:08:11 -0800 From: "David G. Lawrence" <dg@root.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sendfile erroniously returns ENOTCONN. Message-ID: <20040103120811.GW56722@nexus.dglawrence.com> In-Reply-To: <20040103115542.GW9623@elvis.mu.org> References: <20040103005338.GU9623@elvis.mu.org> <20040103054115.GV56722@nexus.dglawrence.com> <20040103060156.GV9623@elvis.mu.org> <20040103085515.GR213@nexus.dglawrence.com> <20040103115542.GW9623@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Yes, I think checking for SS_CATSENDMORE (and returning EPIPE) prior to > > checking SS_ISCONNECTED (and returning ENOTCONN as it does now) is the right > > thing to do. > > Last question (I hope)... :) > > Why not call sosend? sosend is the primary mechanism that write(8) uses to send data on a socket. sendfile(8) is an alternative to write(8)/sosend(). Although they both have similar purposes (sending data on a socket), they accomplish this in very different ways. -DG David G. Lawrence President Download Technologies, Inc. - http://www.downloadtech.com - (866) 399 8500 TeraSolutions, Inc. - http://www.terasolutions.com - (888) 346 7175 The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Pave the road of life with opportunities.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040103120811.GW56722>