Aaron, looking at your patch; why do we need to restore the blocking flags on the listenSocket? Isn't it enough to just force blocking on the client socket?
Aaron Stone wrote: > I opened and then promptly resolved bug # 449 to document this issue and > the fix that is now in SVN. > > I would very much like to see that each non-trivial* change in the 2.2.x > series is identified with a bug number. > > (* where trivial means something like a change to the Debian packaging, > or a typo in a comment or something otherwise non-code-related.) > > Aaron > > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:11 -0800, Aaron Stone wrote: >> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 23:31 +0000, Aaron Stone wrote: >> >>>> What happens in 2.2.0 is somewhat similar to what is described above: a >>>> child has done a O_NONBLOCK when another does F_GETFL. This way, the >>>> client socket ends up being non-blocking - which is not what the calls >>>> to fgets expect. >> Possible fix committed to SVN. Let's see if this resolves the issue. >> Hopefully as simple as re-setting the flags with flags & ~ O_NONBLOCK to >> be sure that there isn't a nonblocking bit. >> >> Aaron >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dbmail-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > -- ________________________________________________________________ Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31 The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
