One more attempt: stuck processes

[Gary Mills]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 12:35:46PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
> >-- Ken Murchison <murch at andrew.cmu.edu> is rumored to have mumbled on 
> >17. November 2007 11:21:38 -0500 regarding Re: One more attempt: stuck 
> >processes:
> >
> >>Here's a patch that seems to fix the problem.  I did some basic testing
> >>(Linux only) to make sure that it doesn't break anything else, but its
> >>always possible that it has some unforseen side effects.  Keep an eye on
> >>it and let me know if you see anything unusual.
> >
> >Thanks, it seems to be working fine so far! Enjoy your weekend now ...

> Gary, have you tried the patch?

On Solaris 9, SO_RCVTIMEO is not mentioned in the setsockopt man page.
My reading tells me that it is defined in the header file, but if it's
actually used, setsockopt() will return an error.  I understand that
this is the case for other operating systems too.  This seems to be a
known problem with setsockopt().  I just checked the Opensolaris source;
it does function there.  This is the code:

 	 case SO_RCVTIMEO:
		if (optlen == sizeof (uint32_t))
	   	      sockets[i].in_timeout = *(uint32_t *)optval;
       	        else {
			errno = EINVAL;
	      	}
		break;

Note that the option has to be an int, and the length has to be
that of an int as well.  Linux wants a `struct timeval'.  I wonder
if there's a standard in this area?

-- 
-Gary Mills-    -Unix Support-    -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-