Editing POLLHUP polling
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''This page is a work in progress''' | |||
Recently I've been trying to listen on multiple sockets at once for events like reading or writing. This has worked fine, but as I've tried to listen for a socket close event I've found the documentation poor and often contradictory. This page is my attempt to figure this topic out. | Recently I've been trying to listen on multiple sockets at once for events like reading or writing. This has worked fine, but as I've tried to listen for a socket close event I've found the documentation poor and often contradictory. This page is my attempt to figure this topic out. | ||
Line 117: | Line 119: | ||
* 1997: Linux 2.1.23pre1 added the poll system call, with no AF_UNIX socket support | * 1997: Linux 2.1.23pre1 added the poll system call, with no AF_UNIX socket support | ||
* 1998: Linux 2.1.106pre added AF_UNIX socket support | * 1998: Linux 2.1.106pre added AF_UNIX socket support | ||
* 2000: Linux 2.3.41pre2 returns POLLIN on empty socket close | * 2000: Linux 2.3.41pre2 returns POLLIN on empty socket close | ||
Line 155: | Line 157: | ||
The history of OpenBSD's behaviour is as follows: | The history of OpenBSD's behaviour is as follows: | ||
* | * TODO | ||
== NetBSD == | == NetBSD == | ||
Line 213: | Line 214: | ||
== Conclusions == | == Conclusions == | ||
poll can be used to check for socket closure alone on some systems, but it isn't portable. But it's a little more portable than kqueue and epoll? | |||