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: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:18:56 +0100 Message-ID: <5628C620.7080503@oracle.com> References: <20151021034950.GL22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <5627A37B.4090208@oracle.com> <20151021185104.GM22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20151021.182955.1434243485706993231.davem@davemloft.net> <5628636E.1020107@oracle.com> <20151022044458.GP22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510220651.t9M6pKs1018174@room101.nl.oracle.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , eric.dumazet@gmail.com, stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dholland-tech@netbsd.org To: Casper.Dik@oracle.com, Al Viro Return-path: Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:23855 "EHLO aserp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751453AbbJVLTK (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:19:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <201510220651.t9M6pKs1018174@room101.nl.oracle.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 22/10/2015 07:51, Casper.Dik@oracle.com wrote: > It would more fruitful to have such a discussion in one of the OpenGroup > mailing lists; people gathered there have a lot of experience and it is > also possible to fix the standard when it turns out that it indeed as > vague as you claim it is (I don't quite agree with that) +1. If there's interest in doing that I'll ask our POSIX rep the best way of initiating such a conversation. -- Alan Burlison --