On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> >> On Nov 3, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote: >>> >>> Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Rüdiger's original point was on >>> track: EAGAIN here is a bug to fix somewhere since EAGAIN from >>> blocking read is should-not-occur, and this code doesn't need to grow >>> another error path. >>> >> >> >> From some research, it looks like EAGAIN is possible in >> inet_csk_wait_for_connect() > > that's the accept() flow, right? > >> as well as there being other >> people reporting similar "can't occur but does" with >> EAGAIN and reads... It looks like, at least according to >> recv() that EAGAIN is what we would get if a timeout >> occurs. > > why not APR_ETIMEUP? >
because that's not what is returned :)
