[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: why not remove AF_LOCAL sockets on last close?
> But I agree that if leaving the sockets around permits no interesting
> feature whatsoever (i.e. it doesn't even serve for SO_REUSEADDR),
I've been trying to think of any such feature since this discussion
started. So far i've failed.
> it very well could be a design or implementation bug,
I suspect it is actually not so much a design or implementation bug as
it is a historical accident: I suspect the initial implementation made
them a new inode type because it was a cheap and easy way to get a
namespace for free, and didn't bother with the impedance mismatch
between filesystem semantics and (other-AF) socket semantics because it
was just a quick experimental hack.
Then, as often happens, the quick experimental hack persisted long
beyond its initial experimental phase, with nobody fixing the semantics
because everybody was used to them and software was written to deal.
As I mentioned in another message a few minutes ago, I think this is
not easy to do fully right - indeed, it's not totally clear what
"right" is in all cases - but I do think it is easy to come close
enough to be useful.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |