On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Ove Kaaven wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Alex Korobka wrote:
>
> > How about this
> >
> > a) Don't set FD_CLOSE in sock->pmask on POLLHUP for normal data flow
> > if recv( ..., MSG_PEEK) returns > 0. Disable polling for this socket.
>
> Postponing FD_CLOSE until all data has been read out may be a good idea,
> I'm just not sure whether that's what Windows does.
>
I'm pretty sure this is what is written in MSDN docs - no FD_CLOSE until
all the data has been read. At least for SOCK_STREAM connections.
Alex
> > b) In the reenabler for FD_READ event, if WS_FD_CONNECTED is missing,
> > FD_CLOSE is not present in sock->pmask and recv( ..., MSG_PEEK)
> > returns zero or less then set sock->pmask to FD_CLOSE and do
> > set_event(sock->event) to deliver it.
>
> Don't think so, unconnected datagram sockets should preferably work too.
> (I also think poll() may be prettier than MSG_PEEK.)
Hm, true. How about adding WS_FD_CLOSING flag that is set when we
receive POLLHUP?
Alex
> If we do it Alexandre's way, perhaps we could add an explicit poll() call
> in sock_reselect, it'd still return POLLIN | POLLHUP when there's data,
> and so it could just call sock_poll_event() with that...
>
