From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266647AbUBSHxv (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 02:53:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266666AbUBSHxv (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 02:53:51 -0500 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:65413 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266647AbUBSHxt (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 02:53:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:53:43 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Paul Jakma Cc: David Schwartz , hasso@estpak.ee, Linux Kernel Subject: Re: raw sockets and blocking Message-ID: <20040219075343.GA4113@mail.shareable.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Jakma wrote: > > It is, however, perfectly legal to say an operation can > > complete without blocking (say, through 'select' or 'poll') and > > later return EWOULDBLOCK. (So long as some operation could have > > completed, not necessarily the one you tried.) > > Right. But that's fine, we can deal with that, if the error is > posted. > > Problem is no error is posted when we sendmsg[1], yet the socket > thereafter stays write-blocked, with (sane) way for us to recover. I hate to check the obvious, but did you try setting the O_NONBLOCK flag for the socket? Did you try setting the MSG_DONTWAIT flag for the sendmsg operation? -- Jamie