From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33977)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TQceK-0003mQ-1h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:28:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TQceE-0006Qt-4z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:27:55 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9255)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <pbonzini@redhat.com>) id 1TQceD-0006Qn-Su
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:27:50 -0400
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
	(int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9NBRn3j012632
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:27:49 -0400
Message-ID: <50867F31.3080507@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:27:45 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1350653528-5834-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1350653528-5834-9-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<87r4oqbj2z.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
In-Reply-To: <87r4oqbj2z.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 08/29] migration (outgoing): add error
 propagation for all protocols
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Il 22/10/2012 17:52, Markus Armbruster ha scritto:
>> >  
>> > +    fcntl(s->fd, F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK);
> Sure this can't fail?
> 

Yes, we even assume that when we call socket_set_nonblock.

Paolo