From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
 for sockets in accept(3)
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 05:44:09 -0700
Message-ID: <1445949849.7476.10.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
References: <5628636E.1020107@oracle.com>
	 <20151022044458.GP22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	 <20151022060304.GQ22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	 <201510220634.t9M6YJLD017883@room101.nl.oracle.com>
	 <20151022172146.GS22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	 <201510221824.t9MIOp6n003978@room101.nl.oracle.com>
	 <20151022190701.GV22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	 <201510221951.t9MJp5LC005892@room101.nl.oracle.com>
	 <20151022215741.GW22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	 <201510230952.t9N9qYZJ021998@room101.nl.oracle.com>
	 <20151024023054.GZ22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	 <201510270908.t9R9873a001683@room101.nl.oracle.com>
	 <562F577E.6000901@oracle.com>
	 <1445947270.7476.7.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
	 <562F6DB5.1040407@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Casper.Dik@oracle.com, Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, stephen@networkplumber.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, dholland-tech@netbsd.org
To: Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@oracle.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:35000 "EHLO
	mail-pa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S932213AbbJ0MoL (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:44:11 -0400
Received: by pasz6 with SMTP id z6so221859053pas.2
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 27 Oct 2015 05:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <562F6DB5.1040407@oracle.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 12:27 +0000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> On 27/10/2015 12:01, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > Are non multi threaded applications considered well written ?
> >
> > listener = socket(...);
> > bind(listener, ...);
> > listen(fd, 10000);
> > Loop 1 10
> >    if (fork() == 0)
> >      do_accept(listener)
> >
> > Now if a child does a close(listener), or is killed, you propose that it
> > does an implicit shutdown() and all other children no longer can
> > accept() ?
> 
> No, of course not. I made it quite clear I was talking about MT programs.

Nothing is clear. Sorry.

Now shat about programs using both fork() model and MT, to get one MT
process per NUMA node ?