On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 07:32:23AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote: > At 10:32 AM 4/30/2002 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> Of course we are then exposed to the issue that Cygwin was trying > >> to fix by setting linger to On, i.e. the case of a process > >> exiting just after the close(). Fortunately sockets are usually > > > >...why cant we keep that, i. e. > > > > If the socket is non blocking > > then make it blocking > > set linger to On, as done currently > > because in the case of a server handling many connections at once > (ssh or sshd, among others) you don't want to block the whole operation > when closing one socket.
That makes sense... but doesn't that again break something else? Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.