From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Burlison Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:37:26 +0000 Message-ID: <562F7E16.2070906@oracle.com> References: <20151024023054.GZ22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510270908.t9R9873a001683@room101.nl.oracle.com> <562F577E.6000901@oracle.com> <20151027.064228.237119117273824839.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Casper.Dik@oracle.com, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dholland-tech@netbsd.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:47959 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932072AbbJ0Nhb (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:37:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20151027.064228.237119117273824839.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 27/10/2015 13:42, David Miller wrote: > This semantic would only exist after Linux version X.Y.Z and vendor > kernels that decided to backport the feature. > > Ergo, this application would ironically be non-portable on Linux > machines. Yes, that's true enough, until nobody was using the old versions any more. > If portable Linux applications have to handle the situation using > existing facilities there is absolutely zero value to add it now > because it only will add more complexity to applications handling > things correctly because they will always have two cases to somehow > conditionally handle under Linux. > > And if the intention is to just always assume the close() semantic > thing is there, then you have given me a disincentive to ever add the > facility. If you took that argument to it's logical extreme they you'd never make any changes that made changes to existing behaviour, and that's patently not the case. -- Alan Burlison --