Re: poll(2) semantics changed in 2.4.0-? vs. 2.2.16?

2000-10-08 Thread Martin Diehl
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Andi Kleen wrote: [icmp errors on unconnected udp sockets not passed to application layer] > > Alexey Kuznetsov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) changed it. Ask him why he did it, > I agree with you that it would make more sense to keep the old behaviour > (even though it is differing

Re: poll(2) semantics changed in 2.4.0-? vs. 2.2.16?

2000-10-08 Thread Martin Diehl
On Fri, 6 Oct 2000, Andi Kleen wrote: [icmp errors on unconnected udp sockets not passed to application layer] Alexey Kuznetsov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) changed it. Ask him why he did it, I agree with you that it would make more sense to keep the old behaviour (even though it is differing from

Re: poll(2) semantics changed in 2.4.0-? vs. 2.2.16?

2000-10-05 Thread Andi Kleen
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 02:13:45AM +0200, Martin Diehl wrote: > So, for me the 2.4.0-test9 behavior does not only differ from 2.2 and what > manpages say - I'm just wondering how to detect the unreachable peer port? > poll()-timeout means no response at all, which is sth different and forces >

Re: poll(2) semantics changed in 2.4.0-? vs. 2.2.16?

2000-10-05 Thread Martin Diehl
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, David S. Miller wrote: > Fix your /etc/nsswitch.conf to not try to use NIS/NIS+ if you > do not have these services available. Yes, of course you are right - incorrect nsswitch.conf will reveal this problem too - but: No, the issue I've tried to demonstrate with my

Re: poll(2) semantics changed in 2.4.0-? vs. 2.2.16?

2000-10-05 Thread David S. Miller
Fix your /etc/nsswitch.conf to not try to use NIS/NIS+ if you do not have these services available. Later, David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at

poll(2) semantics changed in 2.4.0-? vs. 2.2.16?

2000-10-05 Thread Martin Diehl
Hi, had some long network stalls during initscripts in 2.4.0-test9. newaliases appeared to block until timeout in do_poll() on udp socket. I've written a demo program to show what's going on without depending on initscript and config (DNS/RPC/NIS) issues - attached polltest.c It sends something

poll(2) semantics changed in 2.4.0-? vs. 2.2.16?

2000-10-05 Thread Martin Diehl
Hi, had some long network stalls during initscripts in 2.4.0-test9. newaliases appeared to block until timeout in do_poll() on udp socket. I've written a demo program to show what's going on without depending on initscript and config (DNS/RPC/NIS) issues - attached polltest.c It sends something

Re: poll(2) semantics changed in 2.4.0-? vs. 2.2.16?

2000-10-05 Thread David S. Miller
Fix your /etc/nsswitch.conf to not try to use NIS/NIS+ if you do not have these services available. Later, David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at

Re: poll(2) semantics changed in 2.4.0-? vs. 2.2.16?

2000-10-05 Thread Andi Kleen
On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 02:13:45AM +0200, Martin Diehl wrote: So, for me the 2.4.0-test9 behavior does not only differ from 2.2 and what manpages say - I'm just wondering how to detect the unreachable peer port? poll()-timeout means no response at all, which is sth different and forces