From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: fix connect hang in client mode
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:58:43 +0800
Message-ID: <20160721125843.GH28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
References: <20160721093714.GD28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <579099BC.9050603@samsung.com>
 <20160721101311.GE28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <5790A5D4.1090703@samsung.com> <5790AEB3.2010708@samsung.com>
 <20160721114016.GF28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <5790BBA7.6070202@samsung.com> <5790BC5A.2010505@samsung.com>
 <20160721123524.GG28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <5790C34E.9030403@samsung.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Huawei Xie <huawei.xie@intel.com>,
 Dyasly Sergey <s.dyasly@samsung.com>,
 Heetae Ahn <heetae82.ahn@samsung.com>,
 Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@samsung.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578FC2B9D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:54:38 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5790C34E.9030403@samsung.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:42:54PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> On 21.07.2016 15:35, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:13:14PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you think of it?
> >>>
> >>> I found that we can't check connection status without select/poll
> >>> on it. 'getsockopt()' will return 0 with no errors if connection
> >>> is not still established just like if it was.
> >>> So, I think, the first version of this patch is the only
> >>> acceptable solution.
> >>
> >> Sorry, v2 is acceptable too, because it always calls 'connect()'.
> > 
> > So you have done the test that it works?
> 
> No, it's just theory. I don't know how to test this.
> 
> > I'm more curious to know
> > could your above case hit the getsockopt() code path, I mean, the
> > path that errno is set to EINPROGRESS or EISCONN?
> 
> As I already told, I don't sure that we're able to get EINPROGRESS
> on our AF_UNIX sockets.
> In v2 'getsockopt()' check is unnecessary.

We then have no reason to keep it?

	--yliu