26 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-javaclose() of active socket does not wor...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Arne H. Juul | Dec 11, 2006 6:47 am | |
| Arne H. Juul | Dec 11, 2006 7:06 am | |
| Achilleas Mantzios | Dec 11, 2006 7:25 am | |
| Achilleas Mantzios | Dec 11, 2006 7:48 am | |
| Kostik Belousov | Dec 11, 2006 9:11 am | |
| Arne H. Juul | Dec 11, 2006 2:40 pm | |
| David Xu | Dec 11, 2006 4:15 pm | |
| Arne H. Juul | Dec 11, 2006 4:25 pm | |
| Arne H. Juul | Dec 11, 2006 4:50 pm | |
| David Xu | Dec 11, 2006 5:04 pm | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 11, 2006 5:08 pm | |
| Bruce Evans | Dec 11, 2006 9:54 pm | |
| Poul-Henning Kamp | Dec 11, 2006 10:43 pm | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 12, 2006 5:21 am | |
| Kostik Belousov | Dec 12, 2006 5:59 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 12, 2006 6:24 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 12, 2006 6:35 am | |
| Kostik Belousov | Dec 12, 2006 6:38 am | |
| Greg Lewis | Dec 12, 2006 11:31 am | |
| Daniel Eischen | Dec 12, 2006 12:49 pm | |
| David Xu | Dec 12, 2006 3:29 pm | |
| Arne H. Juul | Dec 12, 2006 5:59 pm | |
| Bruce Evans | Dec 12, 2006 7:28 pm | |
| Julian Elischer | Dec 12, 2006 11:12 pm | |
| Bruce Evans | Dec 13, 2006 3:28 am | |
| David Xu | Dec 13, 2006 4:10 am |
| Subject: | close() of active socket does not work on FreeBSD 6 | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Daniel Eischen (deis...@freebsd.org) | |
| Date: | Dec 12, 2006 5:21:15 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-java | |
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Arne H. Juul wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, David Xu wrote:
On Tuesday 12 December 2006 06:34, Arne H. Juul wrote: <snip>
This is exactly the sort of issue that should be solved by the thread library / kernel threads implementation and not in every threaded application that needs it, in my view.
It should not be done in new thread library, do you want a bloat and error-prone thread library ? Instead if this semantic is really necessary, it should be done in kernel.
Well, it depends on the alternatives. If a clean kernel implementation is possible - yes please, of course. If only a complex, error-prone kernel implementation is possible, I would prefer to have the complexity in the thread library.
Hacking libthr or libpthread to do this for you is not an option. They would then look like libc_r since all fd's accesses would need to be wrapped. If this needs to be done, it must be in the kernel.
It's also couldn't be entirely solved by fixing it in the threads library. You could still have a non-threaded application that waits on a read operation, but receives a signal and closes the socket in the signal handler.
-- DE