Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>Martin Stjernholm wrote:
>>"Stephen R. van den Berg" <<srb[at]cuci.nl>> wrote:
>>> As far as I can remember, the problem involved the socket still having
>>> unsent data in it, then being closed, the unsent data already in the kernel
>>> buffers of the socket then gets dropped by the kernel instead of still
>>> being sent.
Incidentally, while diagnosing it, I first thought it to be a kernel bug.
Then upon checking the kernel source, I decided that it is doing the right
thing, and that Roxen is doing it wrong.
>>> The problem is a rare occurrence, and it was a pain to actually diagnose it.
>>How old is the patch? I've diagnosed and fixed problems like that too
>>- disconnect() was sometimes called from the read callback when it
>>should be called by the write cb instead. See the comments in
>About 5 years old.
I checked your comments, you appear to have fixed that around March 2007;
so it could very well be the same bug (we should sync patches more often :-).
I'll take my fix out and cross my fingers.
Stephen R. van den Berg.
Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no
guarantee of eventual success.