Robert Watson wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Colin Percival wrote: >> Attempt to reduce accidental foot-shooting by pointing out that >> accept(2)ed sockets do not necessarily inherit O_NONBLOCK from >> listening sockets on non-FreeBSD platforms. > > I wonder how much trouble we should go to to document bugs in other > systems as non-portabilities for features that work in our system.
I don't think there's any simple rule to apply here except "use common sense". One can argue that FreeBSD man pages exist for the purpose of documenting FreeBSD; but I'd also like to think that FreeBSD is a good development platform for writing portable applications, so alerting our users to potentially non-portable code certainly has some value. (And there are many other examples of "portable programs should not..." in our man pages, not just the one I added.) The non-portability I just documented was a particularly obnoxious one, since in event-driven code it can go unnoticed for a long time -- as I just recently discovered. > I think a more general caution for accept(2) might instead be: > > BUGS > The inheritence of socket options from a listen socket to a newly > accepted socket is inconsistent across protocols, and non-portable. I was originally going to write it that way, but when I looked at the existing text I saw that it only mentioned inheriting O_NONBLOCK and said nothing about other options -- so I figured that it was appropriate to follow suit and only mention O_NONBLOCK in saying what was non-portable. -- Colin Percival Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve Founder / author, Tarsnap | tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
