From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261921AbTDIBFN (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 21:05:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261924AbTDIBFN (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 21:05:13 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc03.attbi.com ([204.127.202.63]:33756 "EHLO sccrmhc03.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261921AbTDIBFM (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 21:05:12 -0400 Message-ID: <3E9376FA.7070906@kegel.com> Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 18:27:22 -0700 From: Dan Kegel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030313 X-Accept-Language: de-de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: root@chaos.analogic.com CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: fsync() on unix domain sockets? References: <3E934DB7.1000503@kegel.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Richard B. Johnson wrote: > You will never find > any unflushed buffers in Unix Domain sockets because you need > an active reader before the write will succeed. The writer will > block until the reader has all the data. OK, then, at least I had a nice read through the af_unix.c code. I guess I'll write a little test program to verify the problem I thought I had doesn't exist. Thanks, Dan -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045