On Wednesday 08 October 2008 02:16:45 am Robert Watson wrote: > On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, John Baldwin wrote: > > > On Tuesday 07 October 2008 04:57:55 pm Robert Watson wrote: > >> rwatson 2008-10-07 20:57:55 UTC > >> > >> FreeBSD src repository > >> > >> Modified files: > >> sys/kern uipc_socket.c > >> Log: > >> SVN rev 183675 on 2008-10-07 20:57:55Z by rwatson > >> > >> In soreceive_dgram, when a 0-length buffer is passed into recv(2) and > >> no data is ready, return 0 rather than blocking or returning EAGAIN. > >> This is consistent with the behavior of soreceive_generic (soreceive) > >> in earlier versions of FreeBSD, and restores this behavior for UDP. > >> > >> Discussed with: jhb, sam > >> MFC after: 3 days > > > > I do find this behavior odd though. I would expect > > > > recv(fd, NULL, 0) > > > > to discard the next packet from the socket if one is available rather than > > returning success and not doing anything (and it seems that this is what it > > does both before and now). Similarly, I would expect recv(fd, NULL, 0) to > > block on a blocking socket if there isn't a packet available. It would be > > orthogonal then to return EAGAIN in this case (no packet available, > > zero-length user buffer) on a non-blocking socket. > > > > It seems that Solaris dropped this behavior (return 0) from their recv() > > system call sometime after SunOS 4.0 from comments in the OpenSolaris > > source. From reading __skb_recv_datagram(), it seems that Linux 2.6 returns > > EAGAIN. NetBSD and OS X both have the odd behavior. OpenBSD has the odd > > behavior, but with a caveat of sorts having to do with control messages. > > OpenBSD cvsweb annotate is down though, so I haven't found the reason for > > their change. > > Yes, I agree it's odd, and I'm not sure I like it. I discovered the problem > while writing edge-case regression tests for socket receive to better exercise > soreceive_dgram, at first concluding it was a bug in soreceive_generic! My > feeling, though, is that I should leave behavior "compatible" for 7.1, and > perhaps we should change it for 7.2.
Ok, so I guess you will revert this from HEAD after the MFC? -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
