On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 12:42:21PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 3/27/20 11:35 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 11:19:36AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> > > Although the remote end should always be tolerant of a socket being
> > > arbitrarily closed, there are situations
On 3/27/20 11:35 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 11:19:36AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
Although the remote end should always be tolerant of a socket being
arbitrarily closed, there are situations where it is a lot easier if
the remote end can be guaranteed to read EOF even
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 11:19:36AM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> Although the remote end should always be tolerant of a socket being
> arbitrarily closed, there are situations where it is a lot easier if
> the remote end can be guaranteed to read EOF even before the socket
> has closed. In
Although the remote end should always be tolerant of a socket being
arbitrarily closed, there are situations where it is a lot easier if
the remote end can be guaranteed to read EOF even before the socket
has closed. In particular, when using gnutls, if we fail to inform
the remote end about an
