From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578FC2B9D for ; Thu, 21 Jul 2016 14:54:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2016 05:54:35 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,399,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="1021268519" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jul 2016 05:54:34 -0700 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 20:58:43 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Ilya Maximets Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Huawei Xie , Dyasly Sergey , Heetae Ahn , Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20160721125843.GH28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <20160721093714.GD28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <579099BC.9050603@samsung.com> <20160721101311.GE28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <5790A5D4.1090703@samsung.com> <5790AEB3.2010708@samsung.com> <20160721114016.GF28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <5790BBA7.6070202@samsung.com> <5790BC5A.2010505@samsung.com> <20160721123524.GG28708@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <5790C34E.9030403@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5790C34E.9030403@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] vhost: fix connect hang in client mode X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 12:54:38 -0000 On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:42:54PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: > On 21.07.2016 15:35, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 03:13:14PM +0300, Ilya Maximets wrote: > >>>> > >>>> What do you think of it? > >>> > >>> I found that we can't check connection status without select/poll > >>> on it. 'getsockopt()' will return 0 with no errors if connection > >>> is not still established just like if it was. > >>> So, I think, the first version of this patch is the only > >>> acceptable solution. > >> > >> Sorry, v2 is acceptable too, because it always calls 'connect()'. > > > > So you have done the test that it works? > > No, it's just theory. I don't know how to test this. > > > I'm more curious to know > > could your above case hit the getsockopt() code path, I mean, the > > path that errno is set to EINPROGRESS or EISCONN? > > As I already told, I don't sure that we're able to get EINPROGRESS > on our AF_UNIX sockets. > In v2 'getsockopt()' check is unnecessary. We then have no reason to keep it? --yliu